Any comments on this? ("Randi retreats")

[Darwin]

I do not know whether this has been brought up before,if it has,the thread may be deleted (I´d appreciate being redirected though)
http://alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darwin
I do not know whether this has been brought up before,if it has,the thread may be deleted (I´d appreciate being redirected though)
http://alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm

Old hat.

It is inherently irresponsibly to test someone for how long they can survive without food. Not even the Guinness Book of Records accept records that endangers the lives of people anymore.

[Darwin]

That´s all?

Thank you very much.

[Segnosaur]

Randi has mentioned other "breatharians' in recent commentaries. (For example: http://www.randi.org/jr/071103.html)

CFLarsen is right; it would be irresponsible to put someone through a test that would endanger their lives. And, when you think about it, its a no-win situation for JREF.

The terms listed in the orignal posting said: If he experiences significant measurable weight loss, or asks for food, then his claim is false. Yet there are several bad possibilities:
- The person dies; everyone is sad
- The person goes through the test, but it is stopped before the "significant weight loss" is found; person claims he would have passed the test and demands the million
- Person goes through the test, but looses too much weight, so in theory they 'flunked' the test. However, they can easily point to how they were 'sick', and will demand to be retested.

[JimTheBrit]

Randi directly addresses the Kolodzey article and other claims about the challenge on the Alternative Science web site, in this commentary: http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

[LFTKBS]

Maybe this makes me a bad person, but I'd like to see the Breatharians tested. If they die, well, I guess they failed the test. No one's asking that they be held against their will; if they get hungry, which they will, they can pop on over to Arby's and chow down.

On that same note, I'd very much like to attack, with great malice, one of the Yellow Bamboo guys with a very sharp stick, and see if I get thrown across the room in a clearly fakey manner.

Hey . . . :) . . . if JREF ever needs someone to assault the YB people, please call me.

[glee]

From the original link (bolding mine):

"It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two."

Ah, so if you can survive on water for 14 days, you have shattered all records and changed scientific theory forever.

Isn't David Blaine going to do 44 days on water alone?

Pathetic.

[Trueblood]

Originally posted by glee

Isn't David Blaine going to do 44 days on water alone?

Pathetic. [/B]

I don't know the specifics of the Blaine challenge, but it's very possible to do 44 days without "food." I was on a liquid diet in my younger years for a few months and I'm around.

[Moose]

Originally posted by glee
From the original link (bolding mine):

"It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two."

Ah, so if you can survive on water for 14 days, you have shattered all records and changed scientific theory forever.


I went fourteen days without nourishment (just potassium-saline solution through an IV) and without drastic weight loss while I was recovering from each of my surgeries. One recovery hit the three week mark before the doctors installed a TPN (direct-to-bloodstream nourishment.)

Even then, they weren't particularly worried, it was more of a "three weeks is a long time to go without food" thing.

Fourteen days is not much of a challenge, you don't even feel hungry after the first couple of days, just a little weaker than usual, but not to the point you can't get your walking in.

[MRC_Hans]

I have said this before: James Randi's tone of communication is detrimental to the JREF cause. His way of answering people would be deferred to "Flame War" if he posted them on hte JREF forum.

I quite agree with the reasoning against testing breatharians and others who might hurt themselves, but it does not make sense to be rude to them. And since this is an established policy, it should be incorporated in the rules of the challenge.

No reason to hand the opposition any arguments.

Hans