Randi and

[lekiotr]

Thought all, including Randi, would be interested to hear this account:

Read the Keen Comments:

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ultimatepsychiccon.html

[CFLarsen]

Your post is in violation of forum rules.

Please edit you rpost to remove the content and post a link instead.

Thank you.

[Starrman]

These are pretty funny - the reading comprehension of these rules and the reaching done to find the 'deficiencies' are hilarious. A couple of examples:

Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it.

That is not how I read that rule. To me, it means that once the test is complete, and the test is designed so the results are seff-evident , the results of the test may be used by JREF in its publications. It does not say 'Randi can pick and chose [sic]'.

Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy.

Where does it say that if Randi comes to a conclusion different than the judges he will not have to forfeit the prize? The test is agreed upon by both parties beforehand, if someone pulls the wool over Randi's eyes and passes the tests, he will have to fork over the million!

Regarding the insult - I don't care what happened and was bored with his story of it in his commentaries. What Randi said to some lady in a hallway in the UK does not affect a dowsers rod in a test.

And even if Randi turned out to be the biggest fraud in history, it wouldn't have any bearing on the complete lack of other compelling evidence for the things he tests.

Oh wait - a listing of references to anecdotes, one going back to 1887 - I guess there is compelling evidence after all!

[lekiotr]

Read #3 and #6. Just because it dates BACK to 1887, doesn't mean they are all that outdated.

Anyone can go after obvious frauds. Randi never seems to touch on any of the real science being done,as in the Parapsychological Association. And when he does, as from the posted article, he seems to see things as he wants to, as in Schwartz. The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his, and also the

Also the case of the insult is supportive of selective memory and poor fact finding, regardless of the anecdote itself was interesting.

Focusing on Frauds, not science, seems to me a poor way of reaching truth. If he were interested in Truth about reality rather than just truth about fraud.

http://www.parapsych.org/

If he were interested in the truth about the paranormal, this would be a good place to start to find harder information to spread to the public.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Pelopre
The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his, and also the It is curious that you suggest that Mr. Randi is "babbling."

I put it to you that you are the one who is babbling. You do not make any sense.

I do not mean this as an insult, as I am aware that not all persons who come to this forum speak English as a first language. I merely state, however, that what you wrote is unintelligible.

[lekiotr]

Well, yeah, what I posted, after I had posted it, seemed to get caught up a little stream of conscious (sp?) like, but that means nothing to what I said, and I take it you are intelligent enough to extrapolate the meaning.

[Starrman]

Read #3 and #6. Just because it dates BACK to 1887, doesn't mean they are all that outdated

You are right here, and anecdote from 1887 is just as useless as an anecdote from 1996 (the most recent cite).

Anyone can go after obvious frauds. Randi never seems to touch on any of the real science being done,as in the Parapsychological Association.

But that is what the point is - to go after frauds! The test is not about science, although it can be a tool used to conduct the test, it is about being able to do what you claim. A guy claims he can find gold under cups, great! Let's put 40 cups out there and put gold under some of them and see if he can find them. If he can't, he's a liar or he is deluded. QED.

And when he does, as from the posted article, he seems to see things as he wants to, as in Schwartz. The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his, and also the case of the insult is supportive of selective memory and poor fact finding, regardless of the anecdote itself was interesting.

Randi's babbling, writing skills, memory, beard color or favorite color have no bearing on weather or not a dowser can find gold under a cup. Keen can write the most elequent book ever written, and it wont prove that someone can do telekenisis. You can't make something true by writing pretty words about it.

If he were interested in the truth about the paranormal, this would be a good place to start to find harder information to spread to the public.

The test are about individuals who claim to be able to due specific paranormal things. He says 'show me', that is all.

Also - welcome to the boards. :)

[lekiotr]

But incase you're not, here:

Read #3 and #6. Just because it dates BACK to 1887, doesn't mean they are all that outdated.

Anyone can go after obvious frauds. Randi never seems to touch on any of the real science being done,as in the Parapsychological Association. And when he does, as from the posted article, he seems to see things as he wants to, as in Schwartz. The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his.

Also the case of the insult is supportive of selective memory and poor fact finding, regardless of the anecdote itself was interesting.

Focusing on Frauds, not science, seems to me a poor way of reaching truth. If he were interested in Truth about reality rather than just truth about fraud, he wouldn't do so, it seems to me.

http://www.parapsych.org/

If he were interested in the truth about the paranormal, this would be a good place to start to find harder information to spread to the public.

[Starrman]

The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his

and then:

Well, yeah, what I posted, after I had posted it, seemed to get caught up a little stream of conscious (sp?) like, but that means nothing to what I said

You should really take your own advice.

[roger]

Originally posted by Pelopre
Well, yeah, what I posted, after I had posted it, seemed to get caught up a little stream of conscious (sp?) like, but that means nothing to what I said, and I take it you are intelligent enough to extrapolate the meaning.

I'm intelligent enough to recognize that it is copied from here (http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ultimatepsychiccon.html).

Are you Montague Keen?

[Starrman]

If it is, then that is a very inappropriate last name.

Maybe it is Victor Zammit himself?

[Brown]

Sorry, you still don't make sense. Posting the same thing twice didn't make it more coherent.

I'm reminded of the movie "Blazing Saddles," in which Gabby Johnson (Jack Starrett) makes a speech that predominantly gibberish. Olson Johnson (David Huddleston) then rises and says, "Who can argue with that?"

[lekiotr]

>You are right here, and anecdote from 1887 is just as useless >as an anecdote from 1996 (the most recent cite).

Have you read the most recent documents?


>But that is what the point is - to go after frauds! The test is not >about science, although it can be a tool used to conduct the >test, it is about being able to do what you claim. A guy claims he >can find gold under cups, great! Let's put 40 cups out there and >put gold under some of them and see if he can find them. If he >can't, he's a liar or he is deluded. QED.

I was talking about Randi in general, and his mission, not just the challenge.

>Randi's babbling, writing skills, memory, beard color or favorite >color have no bearing on weather or not a dowser can find gold >under a cup. Keen can write the most elequent book ever >written, and it wont prove that someone can do telekenisis. You >can't make something true by writing pretty words about it.

I haven't mentioned dowsers once. You're right about the pretty words, though. I was just trying to put forward that he seemed genuinely honest, intelligent, and concerned.

>The test are about individuals who claim to be able to due >specific paranormal things. He says 'show me', that is all.

The test is, you're right. But the parapsych assoc. is researching, among other things, how conciousness and beliefs reflect reality, which they do, we now know on small levels. The implications of such studies seem to warrant a serious look from Randi, if he takes what he does seriously. Because, depending on the amount we find that belief can alter any physical relationship, this would effect his, and other studies.

>Also - welcome to the boards.

Thanks.

[lekiotr]

Illuminator. I did not post the same article twice.

BTW, I am not Keen, or Zammit.

[Starrman]

Have you read the most recent documents?

Are they available on line? If so I will, but if they are anecdotes I don't really see the point. Titles like The Runki missing leg case and The death of Gudmundur Magnusson tell me these are reports of one-time occurrences, not replicable scientific studies.

I was talking about Randi in general, and his mission, not just the challenge.

Your post is in the Million Dollar Challenge forum, which is why I responded thusly. I again point to the fact that Randi's credibility has no impact on the existence (or non-existence) of paranormal phenomena.

I haven't mentioned dowsers once. You're right about the pretty words, though. I was just trying to put forward that he seemed genuinely honest, intelligent, and concerned.

It was an example, since they are the most common folks to take the test. Whatever you do, don't actually address any of my points. Let's see if you do in the next paragraph.

But the parapsych assoc. is researching, among other things, how conciousness and beliefs reflect reality, which they do, we now know on small levels. The implications of such studies seem to warrant a serious look from Randi, if he takes what he does seriously. Because, depending on the amount we find that belief can alter any physical relationship, this would effect his, and other studies.

Is someone saying conciousness and beliefs don't reflect reality? Do you mean 'affect' reality? I would argue that all beliefs reflect reality (or one's interpretation of it) in one way or another, it is our only fram of reference. Either way, Randi is not a scientist. I don't see anything in the foundation goals (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html) to suggest that he should launch into a study of parapsychology. If you disagree, please point out where it does.

[roger]

Originally posted by Pelopre
Illuminator. I did not post the same article twice.


Yes, you did. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870064732#post1870064732)

[roger]

Originally posted by Pelopre
Illuminator. I did not post the same article twice.

BTW, I am not Keen, or Zammit.

Then you have no right to quote them in their entirety. It's against the rules of this board. Your post has been reported to the moderators.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Pelopre
...

The test is, you're right. But the parapsych assoc. is researching, among other things, how conciousness and beliefs reflect reality, which they do, we now know on small levels. The implications of such studies seem to warrant a serious look from Randi, if he takes what he does seriously. Because, depending on the amount we find that belief can alter any physical relationship, this would effect his, and other studies.

...I, for one, do not know that consciousness and beliefs reflect reality, on any level (if by that you mean something 'paranormal,' since the statement could be interpreted otherwise).

But, Randi is not in the business of 'taking a serious look' at these phenomena, assuming you mean he should do something beyond offering the prize for a demonstration of the effect, under controlled conditions. Randi has often stated that the mechanism is of no interest to him, at least until the effect has been demonstrated. What he does do is offer a huge incentive to anyone who can demonstrate the effect. That's all: demonstrate the effect. Millions of paranormal practitioners out there, and no one can demonstrate the effect. Not even for a million smackeroos. How much more serious can you get? He's got a million dollars on the line for what should be step 1 of research into paranormal effects: demonstrate the effect. After that, some imminent and well respected paranormal researcher can take his $million and find out all kinds of things about how it works. Just demonstrate the effect.

[lekiotr]

>Your post is in the Million Dollar Challenge forum, which is why I responded thusly. I again point to the fact that Randi's credibility has no impact on the existence (or non-existence) of paranormal phenomena.

Correct. But his reporting of facts about the phenomena incorrectly or not can effect people's access to the information, or misguide it, to whether they are real or not.

>It was an example, since they are the most common folks to take the test. Whatever you do, don't actually address any of my points. Let's see if you do in the next paragraph.

I did address your point about the pretty words, I said you were correct. ???

>Is someone saying conciousness and beliefs don't reflect reality? Do you mean 'affect' reality? I would argue that all beliefs reflect reality (or one's interpretation of it) in one way or another, it is our only fram of reference. Either way, Randi is not a scientist. I don't see anything in the foundation goals to suggest that he should launch into a study of parapsychology. If you disagree, please point out where it does.

I apologize, I did mean effect. (not affect, though). Effects on random number generators (sp?) being some of the more recent. I think Parapsych. is very closely related to what Randi does and claims to do here, regardless of what the foundation guidelines say.

[lekiotr]

Roger.

I wasn't referring to the keen article but my previous post, sorry. And I believe that article is not under any copyright, does anyone know differently? If so, let me know. As for the moderators, they can do what they want with me.

HGC

I am not familiar enough with law and the rules. I have heard alot from both sides about it, but I just don't know enough if it is genuine or not. But if it is, then you are right.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Pelopre
And I believe that article is not under any copyright, does anyone know differently? If so, let me knowCopyright © 2001 Victor Zammit. All rights reserved.

[lekiotr]

How is what Keen wrote copyrighted by Zammit?

[Martin]

See here (http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ultimatepsychiccon.html). Bottom of the page.

[lekiotr]

My mistake.

[Brown]

As Claus (CFLarsen) has already said, the initial post (and presumably the duplicate referenced by roger) violate forum rules.Links to copyrighted material are ok, but do not quote the reference in full.
-All quoted material should be credited to the original author and a link given (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph. Nevertheless, forum administration reserves the right to modify quotes if such quotes are judged too complete.
There is a link to forum rules at the top of each forum. You should familiarize yourself with the other rules while you are there.

Oh, and in case you forgot, posts 1870064849 and 1870064897 (both above) were basically stating the same nonsense twice. Instead of saying something twice, try making your points more articulately.

[lekiotr]

>As Claus (CFLarsen) has already said, the initial post (and presumably the duplicate referenced by roger) violate forum rules.

I learned and fixed the post.

>Oh, and in case you forgot, posts 1870064849 and 1870064897 (both above) were basically stating the same nonsense twice. Instead of saying something twice, try making your points more articulately.

You never stated a reason as to why they were nonsense, you just said they were, helping no one.

[RPG Advocate]

Actually, Mr. Randi does focus on science, in a roundabout, but ultimately practical way, given the types of claims he studies.

All science eventually must have some sort of practical effect if it is going to be of any use to society at large. The eventual practical effect may be many levels removed from the discovery of the original theory that spawned the real-world application.

Theories about "how the mind affects reality" are worthless by themselves. What Randi is asking claimants to do is demonstrate a practical, demonstrable effect under controlled conditions. If the discoveries from parapsychological research are as paradigm-shattering as those researchers claim, there should be legions of people coming forth to demonstrate these phenomina, especially for a cool million! Given the number of people out there who believe in this stuff, the number of applicants is pretty modest, and of those, none have passed the preliminary test.

Combining this evidence with our own personal experiences, many on this board, myself included, have concluded that parapsychology is pure bullsh*t. Since Keen is making the positive claim, it's his job to show that it isn't.

[lekiotr]

>>>>>Theories about "how the mind affects reality" are worthless by themselves. What Randi is asking claimants to do is demonstrate a practical, demonstrable effect under controlled conditions. If the discoveries from parapsychological research are as paradigm-shattering as those researchers claim, there should be legions of people coming forth to demonstrate these phenomina, especially for a cool million! Given the number of people out there who believe in this stuff, the number of applicants is pretty modest, and of those, none have passed the preliminary test.

Not exactly. If it is true that belief influences reality, the complex set of circumstances that brings us to our hard beliefs (read as those that we do believe, that can't be effected by taking on a temporary belief such as "I can fly", that we deeply don't mean.) Would effect the simplicity of just believing and doing. Also, the beliefs of everyone over history, if they did effect reality, would have forged the reality we are now in, which may or may not be breachable by one person, and if it could be, possibly not all the time.

[lekiotr]

In last post "of just simply believing and doing" change to "of just simply forcing belief against our inner construct and doing."

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Pelopre
In last post "of just simply believing and doing" change to "of just simply forcing belief against our inner construct and doing." Has anyone else noticed how "Pelopre" and "Pillory" sounds similar, in more ways than one?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Has anyone else noticed how "Pelopre" and "Pillory" sounds similar, in more ways than one?

Pillory makes more sense.

[Starrman]

I, for one, do not know that consciousness and beliefs reflect reality, on any level (if by that you mean something 'paranormal,' since the statement could be interpreted otherwise).

Since this thread deserves to be hijacked anyway, do you realy think our beliefs are not a reflection of the reality we exist in? I know he has already admitted that he meant 'effect' reality, but I was curious to see what you mean by this. Or perhaps I misunderstood.

[Lothian]

Has anyone got a calculator to hand that can help me with the following from the article?

The voting at the start of the show indicated that of the 63 people who held an opinion 44 were believers. At the end of the show 78 people held an opinion 54 being believers. The article says “Despite the fact that there was a significant swing towards belief.”

Can anyone calculate the significant swing towards belief ?

If you get a significant positive swing towards belief can you to help my understanding also calculate the significant swing towards option ‘A’ below.

Pre-event

Voters for A - 10
Voters for B – 10
Undecided – 980

Post-event

Voters For A – 20
Voters for B – 960
Undecided – 20

Does one of the world's most credible assessors on psychic phenomena, fail to understand simple maths ?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Starrman

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, do not know that consciousness and beliefs reflect reality, on any level (if by that you mean something 'paranormal,' since the statement could be interpreted otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this thread deserves to be hijacked anyway, do you realy think our beliefs are not a reflection of the reality we exist in? I know he has already admitted that he meant 'effect' reality, but I was curious to see what you mean by this. Or perhaps I misunderstood. No, I don't think that. Hence the parenthetical to my statement, in which I specified that I was speaking to Pelopre's apparent intended meaning, i.e., in a 'paranormal' way. No solipsist here.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Pelopre

Not exactly. If it is true that belief influences reality, the complex set of circumstances that brings us to our hard beliefs (read as those that we do believe, that can't be effected by taking on a temporary belief such as "I can fly", that we deeply don't mean.) Would effect the simplicity of just believing and doing. Also, the beliefs of everyone over history, if they did effect reality, would have forged the reality we are now in, which may or may not be breachable by one person, and if it could be, possibly not all the time. I think what you're describing is the age-old problem of these effects not being amenable to detection and measurement. And that's all well and good, and there's no way to prove that such-and-such does not exist.

But for me, and for anyone else who relies on empirical methods to look at the world around us, if an effect can't be examined with any kind of predictability and is no way measurable, then the evidence just isn't good enough to take it seriously. Especially when the claimed effect is in contradiction to what we would predict based on what we know through lots of good evidence (i.e., the laws of physics).

[Segnosaur]

Strange... the article covered here is identical to the article posted by Spectordetector in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25795

Wonder how many copies of this are floating around in cyberspace?

(By the way, I did post responses to the article in the other thread that was started in the Commentary and webcast forum.)

[lekiotr]

HGC:

>>>>>I think what you're describing is the age-old problem of these effects not being amenable to detection and measurement. And that's all well and good, and there's no way to prove that such-and-such does not exist.

Not exactly, it may be possible, but the methods or technology might not yet exist to fully assay such a large scope. But seeing as small steps are being taken (random number, etc.), it seems worth looking into. But perhaps not, to him.

RSLancastr,
The Central Scrutinizer:

Bogging down threads with unrelated issues to the discussion, and speculating about things meaningless to the discussion. Why, I would ask, but will probably would just recieve more speculation and failed insult. But perhaps not.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Pelopre
HGC:

>>>>>I think what you're describing is the age-old problem of these effects not being amenable to detection and measurement. And that's all well and good, and there's no way to prove that such-and-such does not exist.

Not exactly, it may be possible, but the methods or technology might not yet exist to fully assay such a large scope. But seeing as small steps are being taken (random number, etc.), it seems worth looking into. But perhaps not, to him.

... There's a long and venerable history of emerging technology being used to detect previously undetectable things (think Galileo's telescope and the moons of Jupiter). As for being able to affect random number generators, the technology is definitely available to detect any effects. I don't know of any scientific studies showing positive results. If and when it does happen, there will be no shortage of other labs willing to examine to protocol and attempting to reproduced the results (and to attempt to reproduce under different protocols too).

As for Randi, I'd bet he'd have an interest in such things personally, if he thought it had an credence, but the business of JREF is a little different. In that capacity, Randi gives a big incentive for claimants to demonstrate the effect, regardless of the mechanism -- a good first step.

[lekiotr]

See this for some fairly recent information on the Ganzfeld:

http://www.rhine.org/journal/jpab0109.shtml

UPDATING THE GANZFELD DATABASE: A VICTIM OF ITS OWN SUCCESS?

There are other abstracts also on the site.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Pelopre
See this for some fairly recent information on the Ganzfeld:

http://www.rhine.org/journal/jpab0109.shtml

UPDATING THE GANZFELD DATABASE: A VICTIM OF ITS OWN SUCCESS?

There are other abstracts also on the site.
Do a search on the forum for ganzfeld, this has come up several times before.

[lekiotr]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that.

[lekiotr]

HGC:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12853&highlight=ganzfeld

For a thread on it.

I haven't seen any reasonable arguments against the effects that have been shown in experiements. Meta - analysis seems to be a topic of debate, but that article I posted answers this reasonably, I think.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Pelopre
HGC:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12853&highlight=ganzfeld

For a thread on it.

I haven't seen any reasonable arguments against the effects that have been shown in experiements. Meta - analysis seems to be a topic of debate, but that article I posted answers this reasonably, I think.
You've got data from good experiments and from sub-standard experiments. I say it does not make sense to mix the data from teh bad experiments in with the good, it can only deteriorate the quality of the mixture.

Do you think this argument is unreasonable?

[lekiotr]

You've got data from good experiments and from sub-standard experiments. I say it does not make sense to mix the data from teh bad experiments in with the good, it can only deteriorate the quality of the mixture.

Do you think this argument is unreasonable

----

No, I don't.

But, From the abstract:

"Ratings of all 40 studies by 3 independent raters reveal that the effect size achieved by a replication is significantly correlated with the degree to which it adhered to the standard ganzfeld protocol. Standard replications yield significant effect sizes comparable with those obtained in the past. "


Even regardless of meta-analysis, the experimental effects are there, and positive. And I haven't seen any reasonable explanation otherwise. (see the posted thread)