Another kind of argument against "PSI"

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

We have seen believers that found one or two studies that, apparently, show that PSI effects are real. We know that they will take any criticism with anger and will be reluctant to believe anything but that PSI is real.

Well, instead of bringing results, which are always open to discussion (no matter if it is founded or not) I will talk a bit about common sense here.

When a scientist discover, or creates, something new (say the transistor, or gravity) its just matter of time (not centuries, merely months or in the worst scenario just a few years) before we start to see things created around the discovery or creation.

How is that this has never happened with anything related to PSI "discoveries"? Maybe... because they are not "real"?

[TheBoyPaj]

But you can buy plenty of psi-related guff. People will even tell you it works.

http://www.new-ageshop.com/allprograms_306.html

http://www.annebrewer.com/productsbrasspend.html

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
How is that this has never happened with anything related to PSI "discoveries"? Maybe... because they are not "real"?
Obviously because there are so many sceptics around that they make PSI not work by their anti-belief.


(...although if sceptics' influence is so powerful it's hard to know how PSI has ever been expressed strongly enough for anyone to believe it exists in the first place...)


It's all certainly confusing.

[Odin]

Once you’ve mastered the Silva method, you’ll be able to:

* Read people like a book. Know if someone’s telling you the truth. Gain knowledge about others’ intentions just by looking at them. Know anyone’s real motives by simply being in the same vicinity.
* See through walls. Project your mind to any place in the world to detect information. The U.S. government spent $30 million training people to do this and had a 100% success rate in certain cases.
* Influence others from a distance. Leave reminders and create an instant connection using ESP projection techniques.


People should buy amulets charged with anti-psi skeptical energy to protect against psychics reading their minds or controlling them. Governments could hire a skeptic to block any telepathic attempts at stealing information.:D

[Bronze Dog]

...and had a 100% success rate in certain cases.
So, it works all of the time some of the time?

Originally posted by Odin
Governments could hire a skeptic...*snip*
There's no need for the rest of that sentence.

[darw]

Want to know how people from "International Association for the Study of Dreams" think? Check this
http://dreamtalk.hypermart.net/bb2005/viewforum.php?f=2
:D ;) :p :) :( :o

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
But you can buy plenty of psi-related guff. People will even tell you it works.

http://www.new-ageshop.com/allprograms_306.html

http://www.annebrewer.com/productsbrasspend.html

Wow, so, it is confirmed after all, PSI effects are so real that one can buy several devices to increment our PSI powers.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Wow, so, it is confirmed after all, PSI effects are so real that one can buy several devices to increment our PSI powers.
Wow, they'll have to ban their use in schools and universities. Otherwise, we crafty students will just read professors' minds for exam answers.

I'll just buy one in the meantime. ;)

[John de Combe]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
How is that this has never happened with anything related to PSI "discoveries"? Maybe... because they are not "real"?

Indeed. I often wonder, if PSI is real, how it is that most countries still have state-run lotteries, still have huge backlogs of unsolved crimes, still have files full of missing persons, and still broadcast "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire..." ;)

[Bronze Dog]

*does something gross*

I've got this magical green organic material that's guaranteed to double your psychic powers...







... Double nothing is still nothing.

[athon]

I've thought the same thing about homeopathy.

If a solvent retains some sort of memory of a solute, this would surely have more uses than just medicine. Forensics, geochemistry, information technology, diagnostics...I can think of so many things that could be influenced by such a phenomena. Yet we've never seen such an effect in any of these fields, not in the smallest way.

I can think of a million applications. And yet what do we see the homeopathic phenomena used for? Sniffles and hayfever.

Athon

[aargh57]

Originally posted by Odin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you’ve mastered the Silva method, you’ll be able to:

* Read people like a book. Know if someone’s telling you the truth. Gain knowledge about others’ intentions just by looking at them. Know anyone’s real motives by simply being in the same vicinity.
* See through walls. Project your mind to any place in the world to detect information. The U.S. government spent $30 million training people to do this and had a 100% success rate in certain cases.
* Influence others from a distance. Leave reminders and create an instant connection using ESP projection techniques.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/B]

Just wondering. Why don't these people start playing those big high stakes poker tournaments. If you could do any of the three things listed you could easily win the tournament without even looking at your cards in some cases.

1) Read people like a book - Never be bluffed, always know when the other guy has a good hand or is drawing, etc...
2) See through walls, project your mind - If you can see the other guys cards, game over.
3) Influence others from a distance- Get a guy to fold a better hand, call you with a worse hand, etc...

Forget Randi's million, you could be raking in millions every week if you could do any one of these three things.

[SpaceFluffer]

* See through walls. Project your mind to any place in the world to detect information. The U.S. government spent $30 million training people to do this and had a 100% success rate in certain casesOh, that is just precious - "in certain cases"?! Would those cases, by any chance, be the ones where people got things right?

Hey, guess what? I just rolled 3 dice 50 times, and in certain cases I guessed what all three numbers would be! With powers like these, I could be...

perfectly average, natch.

[brodski]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Oh, that is just precious - "in certain cases"?! Would those cases, by any chance, be the ones where people got things right?


No, those "certain cases" are known, in the seekret shadowy government world, as "windows", or sometimes just "holes". There is also some evidence that some people can see through some so called "doors", as long as they are of a suitable construction .

[sophia8]

Originally posted by John de Combe
Indeed. I often wonder, if PSI is real, how it is that most countries still have state-run lotteries, still have huge backlogs of unsolved crimes, still have files full of missing persons, and still broadcast "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire..." ;)
And how do casinos still make money? And how come millions die in accidents that can be clairvoyently forecast? And how come no soldiers have ever managed to paranormally remove themselves from a battlefield? How come none of the people trapped in the Twin Towers levitated down to the street?
In fact, why isn't everybody now carrying the genes for PSI?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I wonder where are the resident PSI fans? How can they argue against this. I thought it would be interesting.

[bruto]

I brought up a similar thought in another thread dealing with the effect of collective skepticism on psi experiments. It seems to me that even if psi is real, if all we can get out of it is jerks bending spoons or telling us our loved ones are happy on the other side, or unleashing the past lives of our pets, we might as well resign ourselves to the idea that it's worthless anyway. Imagine that I really have the power, (when nobody else is looking, of course) to turn the white walls of my living room green for periods of up to seven minutes. That's right, folks. I can turn walls green. An amazing physical feat. I promise you that it's true. It's real. It''s green! Unfortunately that's all I can do. Who gives a flying ****?

[Joe_Black]

On the subject of PSI which of course does not exist, Just to inform you guys that the is a growing collection of fairly recently released SRI internation/stargate/remoteviewing doc's located here. I don't think many people will have seen them here.

http://www.remoteviewed.com/remote_viewing_history_military.htm

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

When a scientist discover, or creates, something new (say the transistor, or gravity) its just matter of time (not centuries, merely months or in the worst scenario just a few years) before we start to see things created around the discovery or creation.

How is that this has never happened with anything related to PSI "discoveries"? Maybe... because they are not "real"?


Perhaps your argument can be seen as less valid if we can give an example of a "discovery" that we know to relate to a real phenomena but has not had any practical applications built around it.

The "discovery" of subjective hallucination would be the most obvious one. People have know that certain substances can induce hallucinations for hundreds of years. Can you think of any "things created around" that discovery apart from the induction of the hallucination itself?

I must add, even though the phenomenon of hallucinations can be easily demonstrated (not like psi), that is not the argument put forth by Bodhi Dharma Zen.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
[B]We have seen believers that found one or two studies that, apparently, show that PSI effects are real. We know that they will take any criticism with anger

As opposed to Skeptics who are calmness itself, and are perfectly willing to discuss any criticism of James Randi without ever getting angry, or screaming hysterical abuse at the critic, or anything like that.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Perhaps your argument can be seen as less valid if we can give an example of a "discovery" that we know to relate to a real phenomena but has not had any practical applications built around it.

Well, no, because the phenomena will be observable every time in the right conditions. Contrary to what happens with PSI "effects".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
As opposed to Skeptics who are calmness itself, and are perfectly willing to discuss any criticism of James Randi without ever getting angry, or screaming hysterical abuse at the critic, or anything like that.

You have a very good point! :D

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes. I don't think I have ever seen someone screaming hysterical abuse at Randi's critics.

It might be amusing though. Does anyone have an example?

[Peter Morris]

Observe the reaction of Claus Fawnin' Larsen, Kookbreaker, Dr Adequate and their ilk every time I point out a mistake Randi makes. Venom, hate and personal atacks follow, with no attempt at actually discussing the points I raise.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Observe the reaction of Claus Fawnin' Larsen, Kookbreaker, Dr Adequate and their ilk every time I point out a mistake Randi makes. Venom, hate and personal atacks follow, with no attempt at actually discussing the points I raise. Thanks, Peter - now I've got to get another new irony meter. :id:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Observe the reaction of Claus Fawnin' Larsen, Kookbreaker, Dr Adequate and their ilk every time I point out a mistake Randi makes. Venom, hate and personal atacks follow, with no attempt at actually discussing the points I raise. ¨

What mistake?

[allanb]

TheBoyPaj: thank you for the links. Truly amazing.

If you read the Silva disclaimer, however, it seems just possible that these people do not have total confidence in the products they are selling.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Observe the reaction of Claus Fawnin' Larsen, Kookbreaker, Dr Adequate and their ilk every time I point out a mistake Randi makes. Venom, hate and personal atacks follow, with no attempt at actually discussing the points I raise.

Then I'm sure you can quote some hysterical abuse right now, can't you?

[Peter Morris]

Most recent example, see here. (http://tinyurl.com/8y9t3)

Look at CptColumbo's response to my points. Observe the hatred, the anger, and the total unwillingness to actually answer my points. He finds abuse so much easier than rational discussion.

I've encountered a lot of that.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
¨

What mistake?

Well, there's been a good example of a Randi goof recently, hasn't there. Randi analysed a photograph, and determined that it had been faked by multiple exposures. He then later retracted the statement, after it had been pointed out to him that the photograph was a totally diffeent sort of fake.

Randi made two mistakes.

1) He failed to spot fakery that was there. Well, okay, not many people would have spotted that. I can forgive that, once in a while.

2) somewhat more important, he saw fakery that wasn't there. The evidence of multiple exposures only exists in Randi's imagination. It is something that he simply made up. It is a guess by a man of average intelligence with no real knowledge of the subject.

Why exactly should we trust his judgement on these things? He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Is it remotely possible that other frauds exposed by Randi have only existed in his own mind? Is that even slightly possible?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Well, no, because the phenomena will be observable every time in the right conditions. Contrary to what happens with PSI "effects".

Ah, but Bodhi, that is not your original argument as I mentioned as a note in my last post. The reliability and replicability of the phenomena is a different issue and one which has merit as an argument against psi. But your issue on this thread is the lack of practical applications that are built around the phenomena. So I ask again, what kind of practical applications can you see built around subjective hallucinations? (apart from the use of recreational drugs which only serve to elicit the phenomena, not control it for some practical use). I say none, which lessens your argument somewhat since subjective hallucination is a phenomena that we are certain exists.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Observe the reaction of Claus Fawnin' Larsen, Kookbreaker, Dr Adequate and their ilk every time I point out a mistake Randi makes. Venom, hate and personal atacks follow, with no attempt at actually discussing the points I raise.

And when I point out that you make scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870696830#post1870696830) about other people you react with "…Venom, hate and personal atacks follow… ".

Granted that is a normal human response however that doesn’t mean that you shouldn't strive to overcome your instinctive yet fundamentally irrational response.

[kieran]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, there's been a good example of a Randi goof recently, hasn't there. Randi analysed a photograph, and determined that it had been faked by multiple exposures. He then later retracted the statement, after it had been pointed out to him that the photograph was a totally diffeent sort of fake.

Randi made two mistakes.

1) He failed to spot fakery that was there. Well, okay, not many people would have spotted that. I can forgive that, once in a while.

2) somewhat more important, he saw fakery that wasn't there. The evidence of multiple exposures only exists in Randi's imagination. It is something that he simply made up. It is a guess by a man of average intelligence with no real knowledge of the subject.

Why exactly should we trust his judgement on these things? He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Is it remotely possible that other frauds exposed by Randi have only existed in his own mind? Is that even slightly possible?

Sorry - I have been on vacation for a couple of weeks so I may have left my mind behind ... is this the same Randi that published a correction to his "hypothesis" based on the new information he was given, and who encourages healthy debate over just such issues? Wow - a man got something wrong and admitted it. Oh the shame!

To answer your last question - of course it is possible that other frauds exposed by Randi only existed in his own mind - if you'd like to show us some of these then feel free. Ooopps, silly me - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS FORUM ...

[kieran]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I wonder where are the resident PSI fans? How can they argue against this. I thought it would be interesting.

Seems to me that Peter Morris and David Smith have both gone for the tactic of "changing the subject" for their contribution to this thread.

Peter/David/(anyone with an interest): Would you now care to comment on some of the general reasons for doubt as to the existence of PSI that were stated in the original post(s) of this thread ... or would you like to continue with the petty squabbles and name calling? Maybe you aren't actually interested in the outcome of the debate - you'd just rather not have it in the first place.

If you would like to start a squabble on "who called who what first" then feel free to start a thread on it. Those of us who have replied to their side-lining (me included!) should feel ashamed that we allow these people to move the argument to the one place they want it to go.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by kieran
Seems to me that Peter Morris and David Smith have both gone for the tactic of "changing the subject" for their contribution to this thread.

Kieran,

You will find that I haven't been involved in the debate with anyone except Bohdi and his original question so far nor have I changed the subject at any time. Please retract your comments!

[kieran]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Kieran,

You will find that I haven't been involved in the debate with anyone except Bohdi and his original question so far nor have I changed the subject at any time. Please retract your comments!

You are quite right. You have stuck quite clearly to a straight debate with Bohdi. Please accept my apologies. Anyone reading my last message should mentally delete the reference to David.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
And when I point out that you make scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870696830#post1870696830) about other people you react with "…Venom, hate and personal atacks follow… ".

Specify what accusations you are talking about, exactly. What have I said that is either scurrilous or unsubstantiated. What part of the post, specifically, do you object to?

Granted that is a normal human response however that doesn’t mean that you shouldn't strive to overcome your instinctive yet fundamentally irrational response.

And here we see the usual reaction. I say something critical of Randi, pointing out specific things that Randi got wrong, in response his fans start accusing me of being 'irrational.' Once again, name calling instead of a reasoned response.

So, objecting to Randi's errors is an 'irrational response' that I should try to overcome, is it?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kieran
Sorry - I have been on vacation for a couple of weeks so I may have left my mind behind ... is this the same Randi that published a correction to his "hypothesis" based on the new information he was given, and who encourages healthy debate over just such issues? Wow - a man got something wrong and admitted it. Oh the shame!

The point is that he had no business even offering his analysis in the first place. He is a very incompitent amateur, pretendind to be a skilled professional. People send him lots of money to fund his examiinations, in the belief that he knows what he is talking about.

So, someone else made an informed analysis of the claim, and Randi published the results of the other guy's work. That doesn't change the fact that he got it seriously wrong in the first place.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Ah, but Bodhi, that is not your original argument as I mentioned as a note in my last post. The reliability and replicability of the phenomena is a different issue and one which has merit as an argument against psi. But your issue on this thread is the lack of practical applications that are built around the phenomena. So I ask again, what kind of practical applications can you see built around subjective hallucinations? (apart from the use of recreational drugs which only serve to elicit the phenomena, not control it for some practical use). I say none, which lessens your argument somewhat since subjective hallucination is a phenomena that we are certain exists.

The point here, as I see it, is that we are able to produce hallucinations at will. Everytime the subject consumes some ammount of LSD or Ketamine, he will hallucinate. And dont tell me that having hallucinations is not a practical application for the ones that consume those substances!!

Now, if you say that nothing has being based on the "hallucinations themselfs" then I disagree again. Several form of religions are based on those hallucinations, so a search on peyote, or ayahuasca.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kieran
Seems to me that Peter Morris and David Smith have both gone for the tactic of "changing the subject" for their contribution to this thread. Nope, I reponded directly to the original post.

[quote] Peter/David/(anyone with an interest): Would you now care to comment on some of the general reasons for doubt as to the existence of PSI that were stated in the original post(s) of this thread

Already have.

Reason for doubt : psychics get angry at criticism
response : Supporters of Randi do exactly the same.

It was CFLarsen who decided to hijack the thread, with his request that I show some of Randi's errors.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Specify what accusations you are talking about, exactly. What have I said that is either scurrilous or unsubstantiated. What part of the post, specifically, do you object to?


The link gives a good starting point in the exchanges between us in that thread. If you read from that point you will see that I consistently used your actual posts whilst you never at any time in that exchnage provide any evidence for the accusations you had made about me. You persistently lie about what I had said in that thread.


Originally posted by Peter Morris

And here we see the usual reaction. I say something critical of Randi, pointing out specific things that Randi got wrong, in response his fans start accusing me of being 'irrational.' Once again, name calling instead of a reasoned response.

So, objecting to Randi's errors is an 'irrational response' that I should try to overcome, is it?

I mentioned nothing about any criticism of Randi by you as being irrational.

What I referred to as irrational was how you irrationally react e.g. with "…Venom, hate and personal attacks …� to criticism. I provided evidence that you do react in an irrational manner when you are faced with legitimate and substantiated criticism.

[John de Combe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The point is that he had no business even offering his analysis in the first place.

James merely offered an opinion as to what the phenomena appeared to resemble to him, acknowledged in his original post that he could be wrong, and invited more expert opinions. Then, when more expert opinions arrived, he accepted them gladly and published them quite openly.

James may be an amateur, but he acted purely in accordance with scientific method. He published a theory that he submitted to peer review which he then discarded in light of that review.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
He is a very incompitent amateur, pretendind to be a skilled professional.

He never ever pretends to be a skilled professional in anything apart from magic - the nice thing about James Randi is that he knows what he doesn't know.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
People send him lots of money to fund his examiinations, in the belief that he knows what he is talking about.

People send him money so that he has the ability to call on subject matter experts who do know what they are talking about - which he does. Look at the Horizon programme on homeopathy - James wasn't doing (and had no intention of doing) any of the science, he was simply there to hand over the cheque if necessary.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
That doesn't change the fact that he got it seriously wrong in the first place.

So what - Einstein got his ideas about quantum theory utterly wrong. James Randi was offering an opinion in a blog - nothing more or less. The wonderful thing about science, unlike religion, is that you can be absolutely and completely wrong and it's just as valuable. At least Einstein, unlike Bohr who just accepted that "it works", came up with experiments to test quantum theory - even though Einstein was wrong, science was much richer as a result of his failiure.

The main point here is that James Randi was 100% right that the pictures are a scam.

Now we hand you over to the test card and some music.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
The point here, as I see it, is that we are able to produce hallucinations at will. Everytime the subject consumes some ammount of LSD or Ketamine, he will hallucinate. And dont tell me that having hallucinations is not a practical application for the ones that consume those substances!!

Now, if you say that nothing has being based on the "hallucinations themselfs" then I disagree again. Several form of religions are based on those hallucinations, so a search on peyote, or ayahuasca.


Indeed, hallucinations are easily to elicit. However, to call the mere demonstration of the phenomena a "practical application" is stretching the meaning of the term too far IMO. When you talk of someone taking LSD then all this means is that you are specifying the conditions in which to predict to observe the phenomenon. This is an issue of the reliability of observing the phenomena, which is a fair argument against psi. What you are suggesting in your opening post is something else - that there is always progress beyond this mere demonstration of a phenomena, once it has been discovered, to a practical manipultation of the phenomena in question. That is what your argument is about isn't it? So to reiterate, I don't see any application of hallucinations beyond creating the conditions within which we observe the phenomena. And so is the case with psi (notwithstanding the reliability issue).

With regards to religions that are based on hallucination, again I would not call this a practical application but a sociological construct which may not depend upon the phenomena being real. Furthermore, if you are suggesting that your argument applies to such sociological constructs as well, then psi clearly qualifies for this. Just think about how many people go to see mediums, a religion in itself to some I'm sure.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
The link gives a good starting point in the exchanges between us in that thread. If you read from that point you will see that I consistently used your actual posts whilst you never at any time in that exchnage provide any evidence for the accusations you had made about me. You persistently lie about what I had said in that thread.

Bloody hell, talk about desperate. Is that the best you can do? Talk about clutching at straws.

People, this is such a storm in a teacup. It was utterly trivial. I find it amazing that he should still be fretting about it all these months later.

Here's how it went, folks.

1) I stated that Darat demanded that I send him a copy of my computer program.

2) Darat denied making any such demand, and challenged me to show where he had demanded that.

3) I quoted Darat's exact words where he made the demand " Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like. "

4) Darat claimed that his words do not count as a demand, and that calling them a demand is a lie.

5) Discussion followed of what the word 'demand' means. I quickly gave up because it was so very unimportant.


And that's all there is to it. No dispute as to what Darat said. No failure to provide an exact quote to support my claims. Just Darat's objection to the word demand.

People you can decide for yourself whether Darat's words were a demand or not. Of ciourse, you might look at the dictionary definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demand

1) To ask for urgently or peremptorily:

Well Darat was both urgent and peremptory.

3) [/i]To ask to be informed of:

Well, Darat certainly asked to be informed of my program.


What I referred to as irrational was how you irrationally react e.g. with "…Venom, hate and personal attacks …� to criticism. I provided evidence that you do react in an irrational manner when you are faced with legitimate and substantiated criticism.

What irrational behaviour? What substantiated criticism? You have given evidence of neither.

All you have is a totally trivial disagreement several months ago about the meaning of a word. And you were talking nonsense even then. Bringing it up again all this time later is utterly ridiculous.

You are the one obsessing about it. You are the one making wild attacks. You are the one making accusations and attacks because you object to my use of one single word several months ago.

It's clear where the irrational behaviour lies. This is what I meant in my first post this thread. Someone objects to my opinion of Randi, and responds with venom and hatred.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Bloody hell, talk about desperate. Is that the best you can do? Talk about clutching at straws.

People, this is such a storm in a teacup. It was utterly trivial. I find it amazing that he should still be fretting about it all these months later.
Peter, you are the one who is coming across as, I have to say, really quite unbalanced.

Everyone else here, everyone, is capable of discussing different subjects. But you are obsessed far beyond the point of reason with Randi and Larsen.
Your posting history is that of a worryingly obsessed person.

I'm not joking when I say this appears to be a real problem.

For all your criticism of Randi, he is certainly capable of something you are not - admitting error.
Just look at your lasrt post here. Darat never demanded anything - that much is obvious to anyone with eyes and an ability to read English. That you cannot see this in your own post is quite incredible.

Peter I am seriously requesting that you read over your last hundred or so posts and see if you can understand why people might see you as totally and bizarrely obsessed to a point far beyond any kind of reason.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by John de Combe
James may be an amateur, but he acted purely in accordance with scientific method. He published a theory that he submitted to peer review which he then discarded in light of that review.

Obviously you know nothing of the peer review process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review calls for referees to check a paper before it is published, and recommend any changes neccesary to make it fit for publication. Had this paper been peer reviewed, it would never have been published at all.


He never ever pretends to be a skilled professional in anything apart from magic - the nice thing about James Randi is that he knows what he doesn't know.

Not true. He believes himself to be an expert on everything.

He sets himself up as the head of an educational foundation, which he named after himself. He constantly reminds everyone of what a great educator James Randi is.

He claims that he is an expert on detecting frauds. He declares that people can learn from him how to recognise frauds. He writes books full of stories about how he detected frauds. He gives newspaper interviews describing his methods. He makes appearences on TV. And he delivers lectures for which he charges thousands of diollars. All of this is based on the notion that he is an expert.

Of course, his works are full of blunders like this one. Only the ones in his weekly column get corrected. The ones in his books and newspaper interviews are left uncorrected to mislead the reader


People send him money so that he has the ability to call on subject matter experts who do know what they are talking about -

No, he asks experts to volunteer their services for free. He doesn't pay them.


The main point here is that James Randi was 100% right that the pictures are a scam.

But for 100% the wrong reason. He failed to detect the fraud that was there, and made up a fraud that wasn't there. That undermines the whole concept of the organisation.

Look, at the concept of the million dollar challenge :

If a claimant is a fraud, then Randi will detect and expose him. But if a claimant is telling the truth, then Randi will acknowledge it and award $1M.

Now, look at the way he analysed the photograph. I think that he conducts his challenge in the same way. Which means that:

If a claimant is a fraud, then Randi might not detect it, but he will make something up, and win anyway. And if a claimant is telling the truth, Randi will make something up and win anyway.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If a claimant is a fraud, then Randi might not detect it, but he will make something up, and win anyway. And if a claimant is telling the truth, Randi will make something up and win anyway.
And that's what your feeble arguments have had to resort to is it?

If a person with genuine paranormal ability comes along "Randi will make something up and win anyway"?

And no-one in the media would be interested in that? And no scientist or university would? Or private company?
Randi would just use his mighty powers to silence everyone in the world.

Wow, Peter.
Wow.
You've really lost the plot.

[delusionworld]

Originally posted by Ashles
Obviously because there are so many sceptics around that they make PSI not work by their anti-belief.
That idea even made it into popular culture for the kids back in 1962.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/6816/superboy10119629vg.jpg
Superboy #101

[John de Combe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Obviously you know nothing of the peer review process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review



No, I simply think that for the purposes of a blog, not calling for referees in advance of publication is reasonable.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Not true. He believes himself to be an expert on everything.

I'm genuinely interested to know where James Randi has claimed this.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Of course, his works are full of blunders like this one. Only the ones in his weekly column get corrected. The ones in his books and newspaper interviews are left uncorrected to mislead the reader

What do you class as a blunder? How would you differentiate between a blunder and an honest mistake?

How do you define "full of". Ten blunders? Twenty blunders? One per page? And how many blunders are you aware of?

Because books or interviews are uncorrected, it does not follow they are uncorrected to mislead the reader. There are many reasons why a book or interview could remain uncorrected. If readers do not spot an error in a reasonable time, a newspaper will not publish a correction. Books normally remain uncorrected unless a subsequent editions are published.

And in order to correct an error, you have to be aware that it exists. If his works are as full of blunders as you claim, I'm sure James Randi would be very pleased to hear from you.


Originally posted by Peter Morris
He failed to detect the fraud that was there, and made up a fraud that wasn't there. That undermines the whole concept of the organisation.


No, he asked people who were experts to comment on what was going on, and gave some suggestions of his own. The end result was both the fraud and the genuine method behind it were uncovered - I'd personally regard that as a 100% success rate for JREF.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If a claimant is a fraud, then Randi will detect and expose him.

It's my understanding that it's not Randi personally that detects and exposes the fraud. He took no part in detecting or exposing the homeopathy fraud on the Horizon investigation.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Now, look at the way he analysed the photograph. I think that he conducts his challenge in the same way.

Writing entries in a blog, and examining claimants for the JREF challenge are very, very different in nature. There are a strict set of rules and procedures in order to conduct tests for the JREF challenge claimants.


Originally posted by Peter Morris
If a claimant is a fraud, then Randi might not detect it,

Randi has always postulated that it is possible that one day someone really smart might be able to win the million dollars fraudulently.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
but he will make something up, and win anyway. And if a claimant is telling the truth, Randi will make something up and win anyway.

If Randi does this, the claimant would be able to sue the pants off of him. The rules to the JREF challenge are legally binding. I'd imagine there would be a queue of lawyers willing to help anyone wanting to do so.

We return you to the Test Card and some music.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
What you are suggesting in your opening post is something else - that there is always progress beyond this mere demonstration of a phenomena, once it has been discovered, to a practical manipultation of the phenomena in question. That is what your argument is about isn't it? So to reiterate, I don't see any application of hallucinations beyond creating the conditions within which we observe the phenomena. And so is the case with psi (notwithstanding the reliability issue).

I would say that jumping from the strict and isolated conditions of a lab, to the modern Raves, parties or even home use counts as practical applications, this is even more tangible because we are talking about one of the greatest business in the world!

But at a more personal level, doesnt fun or dissociation count also as a practical applications?

Originally posted by davidsmith73
With regards to religions that are based on hallucination, again I would not call this a practical application but a sociological construct which may not depend upon the phenomena being real. Furthermore, if you are suggesting that your argument applies to such sociological constructs as well, then psi clearly qualifies for this. Just think about how many people go to see mediums, a religion in itself to some I'm sure.

Then I would say that you are stretching the meaning here. I still think that it is a practical application of hallucinations. Why? Because the phenomena is very real. Lets repeat, everytime a drug is taken it will produce them. No doubts about this, as it happens with anything else you mentioned.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Then I would say that you are stretching the meaning here.

Indeed, the argument is open to stretching on both sides wouldn't you say? That is evident by our differing interpretations of your opening argument. As such, I don't think its very usefull as an argument for or against psi since such different interpretations seem equally valid.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Indeed, the argument is open to stretching on both sides wouldn't you say? That is evident by our differing interpretations of your opening argument. As such, I don't think its very usefull as an argument for or against psi since such different interpretations seem equally valid.

Well, no. I think I have fulfilled your requeriments for practical applications of induced hallucinations ;) so, my argument stands.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Bloody hell, talk about desperate. Is that the best you can do? Talk about clutching at straws.

People, this is such a storm in a teacup. It was utterly trivial. I find it amazing that he should still be fretting about it all these months later.

Here's how it went, folks.

1) I stated that Darat demanded that I send him a copy of my computer program.

2) Darat denied making any such demand, and challenged me to show where he had demanded that.

3) I quoted Darat's exact words where he made the demand " Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like. "

4) Darat claimed that his words do not count as a demand, and that calling them a demand is a lie.

5) Discussion followed of what the word 'demand' means. I quickly gave up because it was so very unimportant.


And that's all there is to it. No dispute as to what Darat said. No failure to provide an exact quote to support my claims. Just Darat's objection to the word demand.

People you can decide for yourself whether Darat's words were a demand or not. Of ciourse, you might look at the dictionary definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demand

1) To ask for urgently or peremptorily:

Well Darat was both urgent and peremptory.

3) [/i]To ask to be informed of:

Well, Darat certainly asked to be informed of my program.




What irrational behaviour? What substantiated criticism? You have given evidence of neither.

All you have is a totally trivial disagreement several months ago about the meaning of a word. And you were talking nonsense even then. Bringing it up again all this time later is utterly ridiculous.

You are the one obsessing about it. You are the one making wild attacks. You are the one making accusations and attacks because you object to my use of one single word several months ago.

It's clear where the irrational behaviour lies. This is what I meant in my first post this thread. Someone objects to my opinion of Randi, and responds with venom and hatred.

Could you substantiate your accusation that I have responded with "venom and hatred"?

All I responded with was a comment that you accuse and castigate others for behaving in the same way that you do when you are criticised (as again you demonstrate in your reply to me in this thread).

If I make allegations or accusations against another person I will always provide evidence for those accusations. So when I made a comment regarding how you react with "venom and personal attacks" to criticism of yourself I provided a link to the evidence that substantiates those claims.

In those posts I point to the evidence that substantiates my comment that when criticised even in a mild manner over according to you a trivial matter you react with "venom and hatred".

[voidx]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Perhaps your argument can be seen as less valid if we can give an example of a "discovery" that we know to relate to a real phenomena but has not had any practical applications built around it.

The "discovery" of subjective hallucination would be the most obvious one. People have know that certain substances can induce hallucinations for hundreds of years. Can you think of any "things created around" that discovery apart from the induction of the hallucination itself?

I must add, even though the phenomenon of hallucinations can be easily demonstrated (not like psi), that is not the argument put forth by Bodhi Dharma Zen.
It was mentioned earlier that you were changing the subject. While not changing the subject in my opinion, you are engaged in a neat bit of misdirection.

Perhaps Bohdi overstated himself by saying all scientific discoveries have practical applications. But it is certainly possible to show that most do. You are simply focusing on a perceived chink in Bodhi's starting statement to avoid answering the question. That being that zero PSI "effects" have ever been shown to have consistent, provable, practical applications. Why do you feel that might be?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Well, no. I think I have fulfilled your requeriments for practical applications of induced hallucinations ;) so, my argument stands.

So would my weekly ganzfeld parties count as practical applications too? ;)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by voidx
It was mentioned earlier that you were changing the subject. While not changing the subject in my opinion, you are engaged in a neat bit of misdirection.

Perhaps Bohdi overstated himself by saying all scientific discoveries have practical applications. But it is certainly possible to show that most do. You are simply focusing on a perceived chink in Bodhi's starting statement to avoid answering the question. That being that zero PSI "effects" have ever been shown to have consistent, provable, practical applications. Why do you feel that might be?


I think my posts quite state my opinion on this question which is that since there are other discoveries that have not had practical applications built around them (contrary to what Bhodi interprets drug taking to be) then we cannot use this argument as a strong argument against psi. It may certainly be possible that the reason for no psi applications is because the effect is not real but the non reality of psi is not a conclusion we are forced into by this argument, because we have other examples of real phenomena that have no applications built around them. My choice of hallucination as an example was deliberate because this is a subjective phenomena, i.e., it exists in the domain of conscious experience. Hallucination is not a "tangible substance" that most scientific discoveries are. And so is the case with psi, so I think we can draw some parallels there

[Hellbound]

I'd say you're wrong. There are practical and useful applications built from the "discovery" of hallucinations.

Namely identifications of certain psychological disorders, various aspects of diagnosis, an improvement to standards of evidence in fields such as science and the legal system, a better understanding of the human mind and the ways it can go awry, the development of anti-hallucinic (sp?) drugs, treatment for long-term hallucination disorders, etc, etc, etc. While hallucination itself may not be applied practically, it's discovery has led to a multitude of advancements in psychology and psychiatry.

Bhodi's argument stands.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Huntsman
I'd say you're wrong. There are practical and useful applications built from the "discovery" of hallucinations.

Namely identifications of certain psychological disorders, various aspects of diagnosis, an improvement to standards of evidence in fields such as science and the legal system, a better understanding of the human mind and the ways it can go awry, the development of anti-hallucinic (sp?) drugs, treatment for long-term hallucination disorders, etc, etc, etc. While hallucination itself may not be applied practically, it's discovery has led to a multitude of advancements in psychology and psychiatry.

Bhodi's argument stands.

I think an even stronger case can be made considering that one of our most prevalent technologies relies on a hallucination - movies and TV. Both are examples of us technically exploiting a “false sense of perception�.

Granted the word hallucination isn’t normally used to describe the motion we see with movies and TV yet that is exactly what it is an illusion, a false perception of something that is not really there.

[Amonhen]

Originally posted by John de Combe
Indeed. I often wonder, if PSI is real, how it is that most countries still have state-run lotteries, still have huge backlogs of unsolved crimes, still have files full of missing persons, and still broadcast "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire..." ;)

Has any lottery winner ever claimed to have used any PSI to choose their numbers? Seems like any psychic who supplied those numbers would be pumping that one for all it was worth!

--Jeff

[luchog]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Hallucination is not a "tangible substance" that most scientific discoveries are. And so is the case with psi, so I think we can draw some parallels there
Actually, thanks to MRI and other technologies, hallucinations can be objectively determined to exist. Not the actual content of the hallucination; but the fact that the hallucination is occurring can be determined. There are indeed "tangible" indicators. It's certainly far more tangible than much of Quantum Mechanics; which has plenty of practical applications.
Originally posted by Darat
I think an even stronger case can be made considering that one of our most prevalent technologies relies on a hallucination - movies and TV. Both are examples of us technically exploiting a “false sense of perception�.

Granted the word hallucination isn’t normally used to describe the motion we see with movies and TV yet that is exactly what it is an illusion, a false perception of something that is not really there.
Except that it isn't a false perception. The television is definitely, measurably there, the visible radiation creating the image is measurably there. The subject of the image is not, but that doesn't make it akin to a hallucination. No more than a painting or photograph or sculpture is a "false perception". They are all merely reproductions of specific qualities of an object in a particular group of sensory stimulations (aka, "medium"). One simply uses transmitted light rather than reflected light to convey the image.

The experience is the product of external stimuli conveyed through physical sensory apparatus; whereas hallucination is experience that occurs without normal sensory stimulus, but is occurs exclusively in the brain.

To take your assertion to it's logical conclusion, all sensory experience is hallucination.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Huntsman
I'd say you're wrong. There are practical and useful applications built from the "discovery" of hallucinations.

Namely identifications of certain psychological disorders,

Interesting. I kind of see your point, but if we wanted, we could similarly identify "psi disorders" on the basis that certain people report to have certain experiences (for example, mediums). The difference is of course in the interpretation of what these "psi disorders" mean. For the negative definition of psi to stand, the meaning of these "disorders" would have to go beyond mere subjective perception. So in this example I would respond by saying that the identification of "psi psychological disorders" is reasonably possible right now solely based on reported experiences. The meaning of these experiences comes down to demonstrating what psi actually is, for example if mediums are using psi. If that were demonstrated to be true then we could justifiably name certain "psi disorders".


various aspects of diagnosis,


Again, this could in principle be done for psi because we have a certain percent of the population who seem to consistently report certain experiences. Again, I'd like to stick to the example of mediums. A crude diagnosis could be determined by hearing voices and gaining certain types of information that could not be obtained by normal means (cf, negative definition of psi). I'm not saying that this is a proven method of diagnosis for mediums but all that is stopping us from making these kinds of "applications" is our inability to demonstrate psi on demand and understand what it is. So the issue here is one of reliability and replication.


an improvement to standards of evidence in fields such as science and the legal system


This could be applied equally to psi. For example, if the outcome of random events can be influenced by observation of the random system in some way then this may influence the outcome of experiments in conventional research. An understanding of psi could lead to better experiments that control for the effect. Why hasn't this already taken place? I think because there is resistance to the idea that psi is a real effect therefore there is no need to bother considering its role in other areas of science. Again, this resistance is because psi has not been demonstrated on demand.


a better understanding of the human mind and the ways it can go awry


If the results of psi experiments so far are taken to show a real effect that cannot be explained by normal means then we already have a potentially better understanding of what the human mind is capable of.


the development of anti-hallucinic (sp?) drugs, treatment for long-term hallucination disorders, etc, etc, etc.



Again, we might already have drugs that improve psi ability but we don't know about it yet due to the fact that psi is not very well understood. People claim to have psi experiences under the influence of LSD, weed or magic mushrooms. Of course, we can't prove that they have because its all anecdotal but this "application" may be with us already. Also, meditative techniques have been claimed to produce psi effects. This may be true, it may not, but we won't know until we have a better understanding of the phenomenon.

Your points are all interesting. But these "applications" are all open to subjective interpretation on how far to stretch their meaning. There are none that are direct objective applications such as the light bulb after the discovery of electricity, which was my reason behind objecting to Bodhi's original post. And that's down to the nature of the phenomena, both hallunination and psi.

[SpaceFluffer]

While I don't think Bodhi's argument is entirely without merit, there are better arguments one can make against psi. The complete lack of consistently reproduceable evidence, for example.

As an aside, I recently discovered that my university library has a huge selection of parapsychology journals, being kept current and going back decades. I've been dipping into them repeatedly and they're quite fascinating.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I think my posts quite state my opinion on this question which is that since there are other discoveries that have not had practical applications built around them (contrary to what Bhodi interprets drug taking to be) then we cannot use this argument as a strong argument against psi.

Well, it was not intended as a "strong argument", but it is a compelling one. I dont understand why is that you dont consider recreational use of hallucinations as a practical application.

There are no one seeing ghosts, at will, just for the fun of it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
While I don't think Bodhi's argument is entirely without merit, there are better arguments one can make against psi. The complete lack of consistently reproduceable evidence, for example.

Well, of course! But then again, we have lots of persons who dont believe that there is a lack of reproduceable evidence, they believe that the controls are excessive, or that the skeptics influence the outcome, or that there are other forces around that make PSI less predictable than other phenomena.

So, the only reason behind my argument is presenting "another kind of argument" against PSI, not state that this one is "better" than others. :p

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Ashles
And that's what your feeble arguments have had to resort to is it?

If a person with genuine paranormal ability comes along "Randi will make something up and win anyway"?

No, that'[s what my very excellent argument have come to. Fact, logic and reason as usual.

Randi guessed that a photograph was faked and made up evidence to support the claim. Better informed people have judged that the photograph was actually genuine, unfaked, albeit mislabelled, and Randi now accepts this.

My argument is simply that Randi would do the same thing in a $1M challenge. What makes you think he'd do any better?

And no-one in the media would be interested in that? And no scientist or university would? Or private company?
Randi would just use his mighty powers to silence everyone in the world. '

Yeah, but Randi just claims that his challenge trumps anyone with actual intelligence, or scientific credentials, or anything. A paranormal claim ratified by, oh say a nobel prize winner would just be dismissed with 'if it's true, why doesn't he claim MY prize, if he doesn't claiom MY prize then he must be wrong, blah blah blah'

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Ashles
Peter, you are the one who is coming across as, I have to say, really quite unbalanced.

Which is why my posts consist of logical analysis of Randi's errors, and yours consist of personal attacks, like that one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi guessed that a photograph was faked and made up evidence to support the claim.

What evidence did Randi make up?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
Could you substantiate your accusation that I have responded with "venom and hatred"?

Your statement that I should " strive to overcome your instinctive yet fundamentally irrational response."

Your claim tht you had " provided evidence that [I] react in an irrational manner when [I am] faced with legitimate and substantiated criticism." although you gave none.


All I responded with was a comment that you accuse and castigate others for behaving in the same way that you do when you are criticised

When have I ever behaved like you do?

If I make allegations or accusations against another person I will always provide evidence for those accusations.

No. You make wild accusations against me, as being "irrational" and call me a liar. The link you provide only shows two things:

1) Months ago, YOU got angry over my use of the word "demand," while I could not be bothered arguing the matter.

2) Months later, YOU still bear a huge grudge about it.

And this is the best example you have of my irrational behaviour?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
and call me a liar.

But, Peter...you are a liar.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Your statement that I should " strive to overcome your instinctive yet fundamentally irrational response."


How is that an example of "venom and hatred", especially when it is read in context?

By me

And when I point out that you make scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations about other people you react with "…Venom, hate and personal atacks follow… ".

Granted that is a normal human response however that doesn’t mean that you shouldn't strive to overcome your instinctive yet fundamentally irrational response.



Originally posted by Peter Morris

Your claim tht you had " provided evidence that [I] react in an irrational manner when [I am] faced with legitimate and substantiated criticism." although you gave none.


Yes I did, in the link I provided it is shown that you lied about what I had posted, even though the posts are there for everyone to see. To lie when all the evidence can be accessed by anyone merely by reading a thread is an irrational behaviour. (The link again http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870696830#post1870696830)


Originally posted by Peter Morris

When have I ever behaved like you do?


I do not know when you have acted like I do. However I do know that when criticised you act with (in your own words) "…Venom, hate and personal attacks…�.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

No. You make wild accusations against me, as being "irrational" and call me a liar. The link you provide only shows two things:

1) Months ago, YOU got angry over my use of the word "demand," while I could not be bothered arguing the matter.


With the link provided I do show that you react in an irrational manner to a slight criticism. The link also shows that you lied about what I had posted.

You are now making another claim about my behaviour - please show where I got angry in that thread.

Originally posted by Peter Morris


2) Months later, YOU still bear a huge grudge about it.

And this is the best example you have of my irrational behaviour?

I have never made any claims about the "standard" of the example I provided, my example is just an example that I remembered when I made my post.