Randi under attack by "Las Vegas Weekly"

[Mendeli]

Couldn't find if this was posted before. They seem to consider Geller a charismatic psychic...

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2006/01/26/awsi3.html

oh, and "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science" ... sigh

[kevin]

probably needs to be moved out of the computer area.

other than that i didn't see anything worth commenting on in the article....

[tkingdoll]

If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely. His "challenge" is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist.


I can't think of anything less true than that. What a disgusting article.

[alfaniner]

I would think that that is a demonstrable cause for libel, yes?

[Dark Jaguar]

Did they even bother doing the most basic research, like say, VISITING THE SITE and actually reading the FAQ? If they doubt the FAQ they can research cases and stuff, but as it stands they seem to have limited research to interviewing people who hate Randi.

[strathmeyer]

Is this a hoak/sarcasm/something I don't understand?

At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy."

Uh.... this is Robert Anton Wilson telling a joke... Joking about the same things that the 'article' is advocating. The whole thing just looks like a joke to me.

[supercorgi]

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication."
Some how I suspect this quote was taken out of context, or maybe is not even real. A Google search did not find any direct statement of Ray Hyman's and the only places where this quotation occured were at the following suspect websites:

Skeptical Investigations (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm) whose self described mission is:
The Skeptical Investigations website is organized by the Association for Skeptical Investigation, the purpose of which is to promote genuine skepticism, the spirit of enquiry and doubt, within science. This includes an open-minded investigation of unexplained phenomena, a questioning of dogmatic assumptions, and a skeptical examination of the claims of self-proclaimed skeptics.

and a site called UFO Evidence (http://www.ufoevidence.org/). Enough said about there focus. :rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Some how I suspect this quote was taken out of context, or maybe is not even real.


See http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

Search for "single test".

[Lamuella]

See http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

Search for "single test".

I searched for it. I found a completely different quote to the one that Las Vegas Weekly is using.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Skylaire Alfvegren...

Didn't this same woo write an anti-Randi article a few months back?

[JimTheBrit]

Skeptical Investigations (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm) Note that this organisation has nothing to do with the Association for Skeptical Enquiry (established for nearly a decade) although I can't help thinking that the ASI's similarity in name isn't entirely accidental. A recent post by another forum member (sorry, I can't remember your name!) has already pointed out the interesting info that can be gained about skepticalinvestigations.org with a quick WHOIS search (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp).

[Mendeli]

probably needs to be moved out of the computer area.


"Technical and Non-Technical discussion area, as well as interesting links to other sites"

I thought this was a somewhat interesting link. If it doesn't actually work that way then ok feel free to move.

[Darat]

They also ran a more positive article: http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2005/01/20/feature02.html
...snip...

So, for those of you who want to put your faith in a miracle worker, or anyone who promises to perform the impossible, ask yourself before you write them that first check whether they would be willing to take the Million Dollar Challenge. It may open your eyes. And when they say no, you may want to think about donating to JREF, an organization that, to paraphrase noted skeptic Frank Zappa, protected you from discovering the big difference between kneeling down and bending over.

...snip...

[CFLarsen]

See http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

Search for "single test".

Yeah, let's.

Because a single test, even one done under ideal conditions, cannot settle a paranormal claim, we conceived our test as the first stage of a potential series. The first stage would not necessarily rule out nonparanormal alternatives. If Natasha could pass the first stage, this would justify continuing onto the next stage. If she passed that stage, then we would continue studying her claim. On the other hand, if she failed at any of the early stages, this would end our interest in her claim.

Where does Randi or Hyman claim that, passing the challenge will settle a paranormal claim scientifically?

Someone, please quote this, so T'ai Chi can't pretend it doesn't exist. Thanks.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi :
See http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

Search for "single test".


Because a single test, even one done under ideal conditions, cannot settle a paranormal claim, we conceived our test as the first stage of a potential series. The first stage would not necessarily rule out nonparanormal alternatives. If Natasha could pass the first stage, this would justify continuing onto the next stage. If she passed that stage, then we would continue studying her claim. On the other hand, if she failed at any of the early stages, this would end our interest in her claim.

Where does Randi or Hyman claim that, passing the challenge will settle a paranormal claim scientifically?

Here is it complete with quote within quote. The question is originally from CfLarsen , in case those with Ignore ask.

[CFLarsen]

Bump for T'ai Chi.

[Stellafane]

Couldn't find if this was posted before. They seem to consider Geller a charismatic psychic...

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2006/01/26/awsi3.html

oh, and "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science" ... sigh

And they wonder why we sometimes come off as "mean spirited."

What a feces-head.

[JollyRoger]

Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy. He's hell-bent on tearing apart anyone he deems a kook, including distinguished scientists and Nobel Prize-winners.

Hay wait a minute I am a self proclaimed Kook.

"In and of itself," says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition."

and if it where not for skeptics who would have been suspicious of the world not being flat.

on the other side of the coin just cuz science has yet to explain in does not mean it is not real


and another thing Abbot

I often wonder why a legit Psychic would have a problem with Randi's skepticism??

[rwguinn]

Where does Randi or Hyman claim that, passing the challenge will settle a paranormal claim scientifically?


Ah, but in the Church of Woo (Convert to Wooism--it's less filling!) one can skip many steps, and forget the first law of Science:
On order to discover How it works, one must first establish That it works

[rrhoad2376]

In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford

They don't mention that it isn't Stanford University that was in question but SRI. Which by the time they did their remote viewing studies had nothing to do with the university.

[JollyRoger]

They don't mention that it isn't Stanford University that was in question but SRI. Which by the time they did their remote viewing studies had nothing to do with the university.


is the media telling half of the storry again.

shame

[I'll_buy_that]

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target

I read up to this point. the writer discredits himself with this and it isn't worth reading any further

[Tricky]

Skylaire Alfvegren...

Didn't this same woo write an anti-Randi article a few months back?

I think he did, or someone else at "Las Vegas Weekly" did.

You have to remember that Las Vegas is a city that was built on the irrational beliefs of the gamblers. The last thing they want is a bunch of people questioning their own supernatural abilities. Many of the people who come to Vegas are desperate for some magic in their lives. How dare Randi take that away.

[Interesting Ian]

I can't think of anything less true than that. What a disgusting article.

I essentially agreed with everything it said. I find it really refreshing to read someone who tells it as it really is.

And I entirely agree with the Fortean position where it states:


Compare this (skeptical) outlook to the philosophy adopted by followers of Charles Fort. Forteans . . entertain the notion that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

[thaiboxerken]

Forteans. LOL. What a bunch of quacks.

[Interesting Ian]

Forteans. LOL. What a bunch of quacks.

But at least "they are neither gullible nor pompous, neither "true believers" in—nor coldly dismissive of—anything. And they have a sense of humor largely missing from Randi's crowd".

Now that's an interesting point. Why don't most of you guys have much of a sense of humour.

[Tricky]

I essentially agreed with everything it said. I find it really refreshing to read someone who tells it as it really is.
LOL. I'm sure you do. Anybody against skeptics is your friend. You're not too picky in that respect.

And I entirely agree with the Fortean position where it states:Compare this (skeptical) outlook to the philosophy adopted by followers of Charles Fort. Forteans . . entertain the notion that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

Actually, most skeptics accept that position too. However they modify it to add "but without evidence, it is so unlikely that it makes no sense to believe in it." The problem is, that with the exception of certain mathematical formulae, nothing can be "proved" impossible. God is possible. Unicorns are possible. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible. Dualism is possible. But there must be some way to sort out between likely possibilities and unlikely ones, wouldn't you say? What do you suggest is the best way to do that?

[VoloVersio]

And what would "proving otherwise" really do if they continue to entertain the notion that anything is possible? How do you prove ESP doesn't exist? How do you prove God doesn't exist?

If someone knows of a way, please friggen shorten my day and tell me.

[Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game!]

As a Las Vegan, I had the opportunity to read that diatribe. This article rubbed me the wrong way. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the re-election of of one of the worst Presidents in US history, the term "faith based" has become obscene to me. It is blind belief that is problematic these days and not skepticism. I found her article to be pointless considering the era in which we live.
I did a search on the author's name and she appears to be quite the UFO/paranormal enthusiast.

http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=1058

"Skylaire Alfvegren, a freelance journalist from
California who writes about phenomena for both local
and international publications. Her talk on
'Subterranean Nevada' is part of her upcoming book
'Weird Nevada".
It appears she wants a more gullible public to whom she can sell more books.

[thaiboxerken]

But at least "they are neither gullible nor pompous, neither "true believers" in—nor coldly dismissive of—anything. And they have a sense of humor largely missing from Randi's crowd".

They are true believers. It's idiotic to think that something is possible if it hasn't been disproven. Simply idiotic. Many of us do have a sense of humor, if we didn't, your arguments wouldn't make us laugh so much.

[CFLarsen]

I read up to this point. the writer discredits himself with this and it isn't worth reading any further
Note the weasel wording:

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target

It says that he was tested. It doesn't say where. It doesn't say by whom. It doesn't say if the tests were well designed and carried out. It doesn't say if he passed.

[Ersby]

Forteans. LOL. What a bunch of quacks.
Evidence?

[Meffy]

Why don't most of you guys have much of a sense of humour.
Oh, we do, but are abashed because any wise cracks we could come up with would pale in comparison to the mordant wit displayed in your choice of nick. Well done.

[Stellafane]

Now that's an interesting point. Why don't most of you guys have much of a sense of humour.

Actually Ian, I have a great sense of humor. Here, let me demonstrate:

"How did the two mediums get to the psychic convention? They flew in an ASTRAL PLANE!"

Astral plane!! Get it?? It's a play on words -- astral plane and air plane! C'mon, admit that's funny! See, we skeptics enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone!

[Meffy]

Stellafane, I got a May zing from that joke.

Anyway, it's mighty good of Las Vegas to do so well by a guy who brings hundreds of people yearly to visit their tourist trap^H^H^H^Hfacilities and spend a buncha money.

[Interesting Ian]

Actually Ian, I have a great sense of humor. Here, let me demonstrate:

"How did the two mediums get to the psychic convention? They flew in an ASTRAL PLANE!"

Astral plane!! Get it?? It's a play on words -- astral plane and air plane! C'mon, admit that's funny! See, we skeptics enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone!

I'm not talking about jokes. Nor laughing at other peoples' expense. More in the context of situations one finds oneself in, off the cuff remarks etc. Something a computer or robot could never understand.

[Interesting Ian]

Oh, we do, but are abashed because any wise cracks we could come up with would pale in comparison to the mordant wit displayed in your choice of nick. Well done.

This is just an example. I did choose it out of my sense of humour, but it's sometyhing that would completely fly over everyones head on here.

I was partially inspired by the snooker player "Steve "interesting" Davis" (called "interesting because he was so boring). But I neither mean to convey that I'm interesting, nor boring. It's just an amusing name. But nothing you guys would understand.

[Stellafane]

I'm not talking about jokes. Nor laughing at other peoples' expense. More in the context of situations one finds oneself in, off the cuff remarks etc. Something a computer or robot could never understand.

Oh, pardon me, you're not talking about the sense of humor that involves jokes and laughing? Instead, you mean "the context of situations one finds oneself in"? That kind of humor? OK, gotcha. Shucks, maybe you have a point, Ian. Here I've been thinking all along that humor involves jokes and laughing, and instead I should have been finding boundless mirth in the "context of situations" I find myself in. Sorry, I must admit that just doesn't bring out the guffaws like a good joke does. Maybe I'm humor-impaired after all.

Oh, and that closing comment about "a computer or robot could never understand." Is that a witty attempt at sarcasm or something? Are you comparing me to a computer or robot -- as, you know, a joke? Or did you mean it ironically, like the word "Interesting" in your name?

[bjb]

So skeptics are wrong because we have no sense of humor? Perhaps we skeptics are actually Germans.

[pgwenthold]

"Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication.""

Some how I suspect this quote was taken out of context, or maybe is not even real.

Even it is real, they are using it as a strawman (Hyman likely didn't). Randi never claims that it would be a legitimate scientific proof of any phenomenon. In fact, it's not clear why the writer thinks it is a criticism of the challenge, because it just highlights the fact that Randi doesn't even require a scientific level of proof to award the money. The claimnant never has to replicate it ever again, and they will still get the money. Part of the whole point of Randi's challenge is that it is awfully silly to talk about replication when you can't even get an initial positive result under properly controlled conditions. There aren't nothing to replicate.

Someone passes the challenge, then we can worry about scientific proof. However, regardless of what happens, they still get the money.

[Darat]

Found the original thread that was prompted by the article: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1410837

Regarding the Hyman quote: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1412421#post1412421

[Euromutt]

I was partially inspired by the snooker player "Steve "interesting" Davis" (called "interesting because he was so boring). But I neither mean to convey that I'm interesting, nor boring. It's just an amusing name. But nothing you guys would understand.Originally coined on Spitting Image, 1985. Davis is complaining to his manager:DAVIS: Alex [Higgins] has got a nickname, "Hurricane"; Jimmy [White]'s got a nickname, "Whirlwind." Why haven't I?

MANAGER: How about "Extremely Professional"? Steve "Extremely Professional Indeed" Davis.

DAVIS: No, that makes me sound boring. I don't want to be boring. I want a nickname like "Hurricane" or "Whirlwind."

MANAGER: "Windy."

DAVIS: "Windy"?

MANAGER: "Very windy."

DAVIS: No, I want a name that captures the real me.

MANAGER: "Plumsted." Steve "Plumsted Boy" Davis.

DAVIS: I've got it: "Interesting."

MANAGER: Wot?

DAVIS: I like it. It's zany, madcap, devil-may-care... interesting.

MANAGER: Okay, whatever you want... "Interesting."

DAVIS: Good, I'm glad that's settled. I'll go for my milk and me afternoon nap now.Yeah, I remember that sketch. Difference is, the Spitting Image sketch was actually funny.

[JollyRoger]

And what would "proving otherwise" really do if they continue to entertain the notion that anything is possible? How do you prove ESP doesn't exist? How do you prove God doesn't exist?

If someone knows of a way, please friggen shorten my day and tell me.

I don't believe their is a way, it is a paradox that you can neither prove or disprove.

kinda like a Twilight Zone episode or like saying a black hole is feeding a star in another parallel world you cant prove it but their is no way of disproving it until we have access to the parallel world and find a way to conduct experiment in both the parallel world and our own.

of course I may be wrong

[alfaniner]

This is just an example. I did choose it out of my sense of humour, but it's sometyhing that would completely fly over everyones head on here.
...

The trouble is, at no time can anyone tell if you are trying to make a joke or simply being a total git.

[Meffy]

Something a computer or robot could never understand.
But nothing you guys would understand.
Of course we wouldn't. We're all computers and robots who envy your depth of understanding-without-understanding.

Yes, you've guessed right -- we are Zen computers and robots.

[articulett]

But at least "they are neither gullible nor pompous, neither "true believers" in—nor coldly dismissive of—anything. And they have a sense of humor largely missing from Randi's crowd".

Now that's an interesting point. Why don't most of you guys have much of a sense of humour.

I think skeptics have the best senses of humor--TAM meetings are amazingly interesting with lots of laughter and clever bantering. Rather than seeing skeptics as "dismissive of anything", I find them (us) people who are very eager to know the truth and share it with others. I think the biggest critics are people, such as you Ian, eager to believe an illusion. As a female, I encourage all women to date skeptics--they'll still think they are always right, but they won't say that it's because God meant it to be that way nor will they pretend to have knowledge that others can't fathom. All true believers think that people who believe what they believe are better and more moral and "funnier" than those who don't share their beliefs. So skeptics piss everyone off--but I find them the most honest people around.

Facts don't change, Ian. Opinions do. Beliefs do. But the facts are always the facts and skeptics like facts.

[CFLarsen]

Rather than seeing skeptics as "dismissive of anything", I find them (us) people who are very eager to know the truth and share it with others.

You bet.

As a female

Prove it.


.......well??? :D

[articulett]

You bet.



Prove it.


.......well??? :D

Did you want a chromosome analysis? Can't you tell by the way I qualify facts with words like "I think" rather that stating opinions as facts? Have I ever lied before? I guess you will have to take this one on faith. But when I see you at the next Tam, I promise to confirm my gender in person.

[CFLarsen]

Did you want a chromosome analysis? Can't you tell by the way I qualify facts with words like "I think" rather that stating opinions as facts? Have I ever lied before? I guess you will have to take this one on faith. But when I see you at the next Tam, I promise to confirm my gender in person.
Seeing is believing....

[Meffy]

Seeing is believing....
Hey, that's Edge's line.

[JollyRoger]

So skeptics are wrong because we have no sense of humor? Perhaps we skeptics are actually Germans.

Now wait a minute my great grandmother was a Germen and she had a great sense of humor....................she must have - considering how her one of her great grandchildren turned out

[articulett]

Seeing is believing....

not necessarily if you are a skeptic--

Eyewitness identification is prone to errors. But I think that I can convince you without resorting to DNA analysis.

(of course a quick cheek swab could be analyzed for barbodies if confirmation was desired.)

[talldave]

It's an old strategy: muddy the waters.

I imagine that the Randi prize serves as a lightning rod for these sorts of attacks primarily because of the clarity that it normally provides. It's the extraordinary evidence that would (if passed) support the extraordinary claim. If a person says they have super powers, great, go get the Randi prize and then I'll be impressed. Until then, I think it would be sensible to be suspicious that there might be either self-deceiption or trickery or both at play here.

[CFLarsen]

not necessarily if you are a skeptic--

Eyewitness identification is prone to errors. But I think that I can convince you without resorting to DNA analysis.

(of course a quick cheek swab could be analyzed for barbodies if confirmation was desired.)

I'll have to rely on my other senses, too, then... :)

[T'ai Chi]

Until then, I think it would be sensible to be suspicious that there might be either self-deceiption or trickery or both at play here.

But if the prize was won, you could still claim trickery.

[CFLarsen]

But if the prize was won, you could still claim trickery.
You'd have to prove it.

Claiming is not the same as proving.

Skeptics know that. Woos don't.