(Ed) Is James Randi fair and balanced? (like Fox News?)

[plumjam]

can any of you ever imagine James Randi looking at a piece of evidence fairly and admitting that after all he was wrong all along, that maybe ESP exists or such like? be honest

[Terry]

Yes.

[sinnikal]

Is JamIs (sic) Randi fair and balanced? (like Fox News)

No, he's fair and balanced (unlike Fox News)

[Buckaroo]

can any of you ever imagine James Randi looking at a piece of evidence fairly and admitting that after all he was wrong all along, that maybe ESP exists or such like? be honest

Yep. He's done it a number of times, in fact. Just not about paranormal stuff, 'cuz he has yet to be wrong about that. Look at some of his past Swift entries on An Inconvenient Truth, for one example of a case where he has revised his views (and publicly, no less).

[JonWhite]

First "Is Dawkins Intelluctually Vain" and now "Is Randi Fair & Balanced".

Hmmm...

[Hawk one]

Do you have an example of Randi getting fair evidence and not changing his mind?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

can any of you ever imagine James Randi looking at a piece of evidence fairly and admitting that after all he was wrong all along, that maybe ESP exists or such like? be honest

Of course. He has said on numerous occasions that he wishes ESP, psychics, etc were real. Can you imagine how neat that would be? Alas, it is not to be.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

First "Is Dawkins Intelluctually Vain" and now "Is Randi Fair & Balanced".

Hmmm...

Yep. I suspect we can punch his ticket on board the Troll Express.

[plumjam]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.
Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,
this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

[CFLarsen]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.
Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,
this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

So, you are saying that merely having a skeptic in the room will influence the outcome of a homeopathy test in a negative way?

[RSLancastr]

There is video evidence that when confronted with something he could not explain, James Randi flat-out admitted it.

He had gone with a film crew to witness "fire walking" among the natives of some country (I forget which). Randi observed the fire-walkers and examined their feet, and pronounced for the cameras that he found no means of trickery being employed by the natives.

He was not saying that anything paranormal was going on, just that he was unable to detect any trickery. And as is known now, there is no "trickery" involved in firewalking, just simple scientific pricipals which are rather counterintuitive.

The fact that Randi was absolutely honest about this, on camera, without hedging his bets, shows to me that he would indeed admit to ESP or similar phenomenon, were it proven.

[Oualawouzou]

So, you are saying that merely having a skeptic in the room will influence the outcome of a homeopathy test in a negative way?

Well duh. And it doesn't stop at homeopathy. If you are surrounded by yesmen, you are never wrong. That's a proven fact.

[WDB]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.
Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,
this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

What sort of experiment was it ? Was it double blind ? exactly how do you propose they influenced the result ?

[RSLancastr]

having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)No, I don't "get you."

If a test of paranormal claims is properly designed, it would not require any "judging." The results - pass or fail - would be obvious to all, regardless of their belief in the possibility of the phenomenon being tested. It wouldn't matter if the test was performed at a skeptical convention, or on stage at a psychic fair.

[brodski]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.
Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,
this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

You are miss remembering the panorama programme, Randi was there to pay out the $1 million, if the claimant passed their test the results were self evident, as adjucated by the panorama team and not from randi and his "skeptical buddies". even the woman being tested at accepted that her tests had failed.

[plumjam]

well, perhaps, i never saw it, but walking on coals is a pretty trivial thing... obviously to do with not standing on each individual coal for 45 minutes, but something like homeopathy which is a much bigger subject, perhaps would have more justifiable basis, .. I don't find it so mysterious that such a unique material as water might retain some impression of what has recently been through it.

[plumjam]

that may be true, but from what i have read of quantum physics and the vital relation between the observer and that which is observed then I wouldn't be so sure

[CFLarsen]

well, perhaps, i never saw it, but walking on coals is a pretty trivial thing... obviously to do with not standing on each individual coal for 45 minutes, but something like homeopathy which is a much bigger subject, perhaps would have more justifiable basis, .. I don't find it so mysterious that such a unique material as water might retain some impression of what has recently been through it.

Are you saying that merely having a skeptic in the room will influence the outcome of a homeopathy test in a negative way?

[Magic 9-Ball]

Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment, this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is...


As a single instance, that's one way to look at it. However, I feel Randi has had QUITE a lot of experience and facts to be convinced that homeopathy is bunk. For instance, Randi (and others) have done an analysis of the dilutions for homeopathy, and proved that it is nothing more than water. If you know that going into an experiment, you are likely to have an attitude that there’s nothing this person can show me that will prove homeopathy works (at least outside of a placebo effect). I don’t see that as fraudulent.

[Slimething]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.

Would you have prefered that they disrespect the credible by continuing to act like people who had seen the same false claims so many times in the past? Suppose you had investigated hundreds of claims that vinegar is a wonderful drink and then got summoned to review yet another one for TV. Would you go in expecting to quaff delicious vinegar?

Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,

I'm really skeptical about that part. Why would anyone call in a group of debunkers to be impartial? That makes no sense. Randi was there to debunk. That's what he does. Again, his experience is that homeopathy is a sham.

this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

No, I don't get you. You can be as skeptical as you want that I have an instrument in my lab that will precisely measure the vibration of protons under the influence of radio waves. Also, one that can measure the mass of submolecular fragments that travel down a path defined only by magnets and radio waves. I will prove it each and every time. That's the beauty of a fact-based world, material or not. If you have a fact to demonstrate, Buddha couldn't stop you.

The very reason all the demonstrations of homeopathy fail when reviewed scientifically is that they produce no evidence of any effect, beneficial or deleterious. Even then, the premises of homeopathy are so outrageously contrary to the proven database that claimants are fairly lucky to be listened to at all.

[brodski]

that may be true, but from what i have read of quantum physics and the vital relation between the observer and that which is observed then I wouldn't be so sure

Then you misunderstand Quantum physics, or have been reading people who misunderstand (or lie about) quantum physics for their own ends.

There are a number of quantum physicists here who could try to explain it to you.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Flim-Flam addresses that. The "observer" is a measurement tool. Not the person watching.

[KingMerv00]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.
Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,
this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

Homeopathy has been debunked so completely that I wouldn't blame Randi for guffawing. It is irrelevant anyway. The challenge is set up in such a way that it does not require a subjective judgment. In the case of homeopathy, the claimant need only differentiate between placebos and their own preparations. I've only met Randi once or twice in person so I don't know how he would react to losing the million but it would certainly give him something to think about.

Sometimes claims are just so crazy that one SHOULD laugh. Respect is earned, not handed out willy nilly.

[sinnikal]

that may be true, but from what i have read of quantum physics and the vital relation between the observer and that which is observed then I wouldn't be so sure

I humbly suggest that you read some more of quantum mechanics, then some more, and maybe just a bit more then you would be so sure;)

edit: brodski beat me

[Complexity]

I think Randi is fair and balanced.

Not like Fox News.

[Buckaroo]

that may be true, but from what i have read of quantum physics and the vital relation between the observer and that which is observed then I wouldn't be so sure


*Gak.*

Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before quantum mechanics was invoked...

[Slimething]

...but something like homeopathy which is a much bigger subject, perhaps would have more justifiable basis,

Nope. Sorry. There is no credible justifiable basis for homeopathy.

.. I don't find it so mysterious that such a unique material as water might retain some impression of what has recently been through it.

Study more and you will. The whole premise of water memory is ridiculous. What makes you think that water is special among molecules? It follows all the same rules as any other molecules we know.

that may be true, but from what i have read of quantum physics and the vital relation between the observer and that which is observed then I wouldn't be so sure

If you had read the text more carefully, you may have noticed that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles. Quacks follow Newtonian Mechanics.

[Minarvia]

Maybe someone here can post the link for plumjam that shows Randi explaining homeopathy. Maybe then he'll understand Randi's attitude better. I remember watching that clip fairly recently but didn't keep a link to it in my faves. Does anyone have the link? I'd love to see it again myself.

[plumjam]

him and his two mates were supposed to be the judges of the experiment, even when they'd been shown to be laughing, unknowingly, on camera, about the impossibility of a positive result

[plumjam]

well, from what i've read water is the only liquid that expands when freezing... bit of a mystery to everyone?

[brodski]

him and his two mates were supposed to be the judges of the experiment, even when they'd been shown to be laughing, unknowingly, on camera, about the impossibility of a positive result

You are mistaken- that was not how the Panorama H'pathy documentary/ test went- the results where present to Randi in a sealed envelope, but the results where self evident. Unless you can provide a transcript of the show to support your claim bizarre claim (try the BBC), I'm going to disregard it as yet more trolling.

[plumjam]

Maybe someone here can post the link for plumjam that shows Randi explaining homeopathy. Maybe then he'll understand Randi's attitude better. I remember watching that clip fairly recently but didn't keep a link to it in my faves. Does anyone have the link? I'd love to see it again myself.

the point is, he'd already made his mind up ... anti-scientific

[Katana]

the point is, he'd already made his mind up ... anti-scientific


It would seem that so have you.

[plumjam]

You are mistaken- that was not how the Panorama H'pathy documentary/ test went- the results where present to Randi in a sealed envelope, but the results where self evident. Unless you can provide a transcript of the show to support your claim bizarre claim (try the BBC), I'm going to disregard it as yet more trolling.

interesting how anything i say against the wonderful Randi is dubbed as "trolling", has it occurred to you that perhaps I may have a valid point of view?

[CFLarsen]

him and his two mates were supposed to be the judges of the experiment, even when they'd been shown to be laughing, unknowingly, on camera, about the impossibility of a positive result

You clearly didn't watch the program. There was no judging.

[Oualawouzou]

him and his two mates were supposed to be the judges of the experiment, even when they'd been shown to be laughing, unknowingly, on camera, about the impossibility of a positive result

Once again: Challenges for the million dollars are set up in a way that requires no "judging". Results are self-evident. The attitude of Randi has nothing to do with the verdict.

If I claim I can make a coin fall on head or tail at will, Randi can laugh all he wants. The result will be self-evident. Everybody will see weither I correctly call the shots or no. As has been explained the test required the testee to tell apart his solutions and a placebo. Testee failed. No "judging" necessary.

[Oualawouzou]

interesting how anything i say against the wonderful Randi is dubbed as "trolling", has it occurred to you that perhaps I may have a valid point of view?

Random criticizing without support is trolling.

Random criticizing with sources that end up being demonstrably mistaken, followed by an apology, isn't trolling.

Random criticizing with sources that end up being non existent / demonstrably false, not followed by an apology, is trolling. Probably a worst variety than the first one listed above, IMHO.

[brodski]

interesting how anything i say against the wonderful Randi is dubbed as "trolling", has it occurred to you that perhaps I may have a valid point of view?

So support your point of view, all you have done so far is made a series of assanine, unsupported statements, without reference to the shift key. Your keyboard should have two if them, learn where they are please.

There are valid criticisms one can make of Randi, but your half remembered, inaccurate accounts of a decades old documentary are not amongst them.
Oh and I'm still pissed that you called me an American in the other thread, I think there are a number of other Englishmen over there who would like to have a word with you about that too.

[CFLarsen]

...of a decades old documentary are not amongst them.

The BBC Horizon test on homeopathy is from 2002.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't find it so mysterious that such a unique material as water might retain some impression of what has recently been through it.

So if I mix a gallon of gasoline into a 55 gallon barrel of water, I can run my car with it? After all, shouldn't the water "remember" that it was in contact with gasoline?

[The Pig]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtmlHorizon takes up the challenge

Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for James Randi's million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.

The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.

As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.

To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been.Randi's bias didn't influence the experiment.

[ponderingturtle]

If you had read the text more carefully, you may have noticed that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles. Quacks follow Newtonian Mechanics.

I think the equation would still hold that is (deltaX)(deltaP)>=Hbar/2

As Hbar is so small for any non subatomic particles the number is so small as to be meaningless.

[brodski]

The BBC Horizon test on homeopathy is from 2002.

Ah, my mistake. Which only goes to demonstrate the fallibility of human memory.

[plumjam]

So support your point of view, all you have done so far is made a series of assanine, unsupported statements, without reference to the shift key. Your keyboard should have two if them, learn where they are please.

There are valid criticisms one can make of Randi, but your half remembered, inaccurate accounts of a decades old documentary are not amongst them.
Oh and I'm still pissed that you called me an American in the other thread, I think there are a number of other Englishmen over there who would like to have a word with you about that too.

thanks for the feedback,

perhaps the reason I can only make half-remembered inaccurate accounts of decades old documentary material abour Randi is the fact that to the best of my knowledge he has contributed absolutely nothing to the body of scientific knowledge. I don't remember any significant paper or experiment with his name on it. Instead, he just seems to sit back and pretend some assumed status as an arbiter of truth. And what qualifies him for this? Cos he has a nice white beard and will always be prejudiced towards scientism?
seems a good guess to me

[The Pig]

I seem to remember a transcript of the show was posted at the time. Randi may have linked to it in his commentary.

Horizon was great back in the day. I didn't think much of the last series.

[Minarvia]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Randi pretends to be a scientist, nor to be a speaker either for or against them. He basically is a debunker of things and people who defraud others and pretend that what they are doing is some sort of "supernatural gift." Uri Geller is a great example of this.
I think you misunderstand Randi's intent. Honestly.

[Oualawouzou]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Randi pretends to be a scientist, nor to be a speaker either for or against them.

IIRC, he has repeatedly stated exactly what you said: that he isn't and has never been a scientist. That's why he routinely asks for help from specialists whenever a claim is made that would require some knowledge he doesn't possess to be properly evaluated.

[Minarvia]

IIRC, he has repeatedly stated exactly what you said: that he isn't and has never been a scientist. That's why he routinely asks for help from specialists whenever a claim is made that would require some knowledge he doesn't possess to be properly evaluated.

Ah, thanks! I thought so and that's what I've gathered since I came here and began to read Swift.
Now if plumjam can see that!

Really, plumjam, don't judge Randi without really knowing what he's about and what he's said, okay?

[plumjam]

IIRC, he has repeatedly stated exactly what you said: that he isn't and has never been a scientist. That's why he routinely asks for help from specialists whenever a claim is made that would require some knowledge he doesn't possess to be properly evaluated.

wonderful, so he makes no claim even to be a humble scientist, yet in the media and on forums like this he sets himself up as someone we can trust to tell us what is truth and falsehood. Hopefully some of you will manage to see through this.

[brodski]

thanks for the feedback,

perhaps the reason I can only make half-remembered inaccurate accounts of decades old documentary material abour Randi is the fact that to the best of my knowledge he has contributed absolutely nothing to the body of scientific knowledge. I don't remember any significant paper or experiment with his name on it. Instead, he just seems to sit back and pretend some assumed status as an arbiter of truth. And what qualifies him for this? Cos he has a nice white beard and will always be prejudiced towards scientism?
seems a good guess to me

Still no luck with the shift key then? James Randi doesn't claim to be a scientist he claims to for $1 million to anybody to can prove the paranormal under mutually agreed conditions, but don't let facts get in the way of your trolling.

[asmodean]

wonderful, so he makes no claim even to be a humble scientist, yet in the media and on forums like this he sets himself up as someone we can trust to tell us what is truth and falsehood. Hopefully some of you will manage to see through this.

See through what exactly? Your strawman? That's kinda easy: I have never gotten the impression that Randi has set himself up as arbiter of truth. He does however help with setting up experiments where paranormalist may take a shot at proving thier supposed "abilitities". So far they all failed, and I can see why that annoys woos.

[Dave_46]

*Gak.*

Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before quantum mechanics was invoked...


Has he used "nano" yet? Surely it won't be long.

Dave

(p.s. I made some plum jam last week. It is delicious)

[CLD]

http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8124a422c5.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[asmodean]

http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8124a422c5.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

If you can cross items due to other threads Galileo and Persecution is up for grabs as well...

[plumjam]

See through what exactly? Your strawman? That's kinda easy: I have never gotten the impression that Randi has set himself up as arbiter of truth. He does however help with setting up experiments where paranormalist may take a shot at proving thier supposed "abilitities". So far they all failed, and I can see why that annoys woos.

Crikey, what is all this stuff about straw men? I've only been on this forum for half a day and it's about the 6th or 7th time I've been accused of creating a straw man. I might have grown up in the countryside but I've still never seen a straw man.
Maybe it's just a standard rebuttal they teach down at the Skeptical College.
I've seen Randi on quite a few tv shows and he always seems to set himself up as some kind of arbiter of truth.
What are his qualifications for this?
If I know TV producers his qualifications are probably his wise-looking white beard, little else.
As for impartiality, well that's a bit of a joke, as it's obvious Randi adheres to his own particular ideology.

[Big Les]

A straw-man is a logical fallacy - a caricature of an argument intended to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. Unfortunately most here are well used to this tactic and see it coming a mile off.

I'm sorry, but by my watch it's Kitty Time.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_845246c368fa4994f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7762)

[plumjam]

Still no luck with the shift key then? James Randi doesn't claim to be a scientist he claims to for $1 million to anybody to can prove the paranormal under mutually agreed conditions, but don't let facts get in the way of your trolling.

am interested as to why you keep going on about the shift key, excuse my ignorance

[asmodean]

Crikey, what is all this stuff about straw men? I've only been on this forum for half a day and it's about the 6th or 7th time I've been accused of creating a straw man. I might have grown up in the countryside but I've still never seen a straw man.

Strawman:; Inventing a position for your opponent, and then attack this fabrication rather than the opponents real position and claiming victory once the strawman is demolished.


Maybe it's just a standard rebuttal they teach down at the Skeptical College.


Look up logical fallacies. You may learn a thing or two.


I've seen Randi on quite a few tv shows and he always seems to set himself up as some kind of arbiter of truth.

Every time I've seen him he has always pointed out that he may be wrong, and he's prepared to be wrong and admit it as soon as evidence is shown that he is wrong.

Perhaps you can find some shows where he set himself up as arbiter of truth and link it?


What are his qualifications for this?

That he is a stage magicians,. and thus knows a LOT about how to detect fraud, rickery and misdirections? Thus quite, quite qualified to setup experiments controlling for just those variables.

And for that he is not qualified, he uses experts in the field.



If I know TV producers his qualifications are probably his wise-looking white beard, little else.
As for impartiality, well that's a bit of a joke, as it's obvious Randi adheres to his own particular ideology.

Of course. he is human. But unloike your wild claims to the contrary, Randi has never shied away from admitting being wrong. Just browse the SWIFTS and you'll see.

[KingMerv00]

well, from what i've read water is the only liquid that expands when freezing... bit of a mystery to everyone?

Ice expansion is caused by the formation of hydrogen bonds....not magic. Look things up before you call them mysteries.

[asmodean]

Ice expansion is caused by the formation of hydrogen bonds....not magic. Look things up before you call them mysteries.

Oooh. look things up.. Can't have that.. that's like.. sciency and stuff. Can be mistake for *shudder* skepticism.. .Nah, better to just make wild claims, and if anyone questions repeat the claim. /sarcasm


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/501546c36c4483051.jpg


And I are seruoiz moderarator... because the membership rules are fairly new, I'm going to let this slide with a simple mod box. However, this is a violation of Rule 11 - and as an intentional derail of the thread, should really result in an infraction.

However...

Diz is my realit1z filter, n ur gett1n wun more chanze.

Please don't do this in the JREF (public) sub forums any more.

Thanks. :)

[CLD]

If you can cross items due to other threads Galileo and Persecution is up for grabs as well...

Thanks. Found some more, too.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1060546c36d923856f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7764)

[Slimething]

well, from what i've read water is the only liquid that expands when freezing... bit of a mystery to everyone?

The mystery is that you've believed it. It's not true (http://xtronics.com/reference/expand_on_freeze.html).

[T'ai Chi]

'I always have an out'

[CFLarsen]

'I always have an out'

The part you intentionally leave out is "I'm right".

This is not the first time you have been caught quoting selectively.

[Slimething]

the point is, he'd already made his mind up ... anti-scientific

I'm a scientist and what you're describing is not necessarily anti-scientific. If I told you that I had a special material that defied gravity, would you believe me without evidence? I sure hope not. How, then, is that different from what Randi did? Randi's no fool but he can be proven wrong. Get to it.

... the fact that to the best of my knowledge he has contributed absolutely nothing to the body of scientific knowledge. I don't remember any significant paper or experiment with his name on it.

Randi is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, a scientist. He is an entertainer, a magician, specifically. He knows the tricks that scientists are not trained to detect. That makes him a better scam-buster than scientists are.

BTW, I've been doing research since 1977 and I only have a handful of publications. Most of my work is confidential so you won't see my work unless you paid for it directly. Don't judge scientists by the number of publications they have.

[Neutiquam Erro]

I think the Project Alpha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha) affair demonstrates fairly well the advantages of JR's professional background as a stage magician.

[Minarvia]

Sigh...I don't know. I was hoping that plumjam was not just another in a long line of trolls but I'm beginning to seriously wonder. I don't think I'll bother any more. Good luck everyone.

[T'ai Chi]

Well, some of the parapsychologists themselves weren't convinced by the demonstrations. You just probably didn't hear about that.

[Miss Whiplash]

Crikey, what is all this stuff about straw men? I've only been on this forum for half a day and it's about the 6th or 7th time I've been accused of creating a straw man. I might have grown up in the countryside but I've still never seen a straw man.
Maybe it's just a standard rebuttal they teach down at the Skeptical College.


Maybe you should google "straw man" and find out what it means. You may learn something. What's the harm in that?

Isn't this the second thread you've started over this dismembered TV show in the past 24 hours?

[Civilized Worm]

well, perhaps, i never saw it, but walking on coals is a pretty trivial thing... obviously to do with not standing on each individual coal for 45 minutes, but something like homeopathy which is a much bigger subject, perhaps would have more justifiable basis, .. I don't find it so mysterious that such a unique material as water might retain some impression of what has recently been through it.


You don't seem to understand water or homeopathy.


that may be true, but from what i have read of quantum physics and the vital relation between the observer and that which is observed then I wouldn't be so sure


You definately do not understand quantum physics.


It's ridiculous to think that Randi is out to suppress evidence of the paranormal, if he were to prove something like ESP he would go down in history for bringing about a scientific revolution.

[DavidS]

well, from what i've read water is the only liquid that expands when freezing... bit of a mystery to everyone?
There's a mystery there for me, anyway. I gotta admit that I don't have any explanation for why your reading should lead you to believe that water is the only liquid that expands when freezing.

I knew that property of water (at common pressures!) was unusual, but because I couldn't recall having read that it was unique I spent all of ten seconds to Google "expand" and "freezing" to learn that it's also true for molten silicon, germanium, and antimony. The common aspect of these substances is their open crystal structure.

If anyone wants to be pedantic about those other substances being solid at room temperature, fine. I'll be pedantic and insist that all liquids freeze (except helium at sufficiently low pressures), and universal terms like "only" don't mean much if the domain is too restrictive.

Well, I see I was beaten to the punch while dealing with a phone call. Yet another reason my job's no fun anymore.

[Mojo]

am interested as to why you keep going on about the shift key, excuse my ignorance


That's the problem: you seem to be ignorant about proper use of the shift key.

[Mojo]

Isn't this the second thread you've started over this dismembered TV show in the past 24 hours?


Yup (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2870503#post2870503).

But plumjam may have seen a repeat: the programme was originally broadcast in 2002.

[Normal Dude]

Well, some of the parapsychologists themselves weren't convinced by the demonstrations. You just probably didn't hear about that.

If you are referring to Project Alpha, this is already widely known that some were suspecting, practically every report I have read has said so. Next please.

[articulett]

Thanks. Found some more, too.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1060546c36d923856f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7764)

I'm jealous... Bingo for sure soon... I always admire the way skeptics turn lemon into lemonade so-to-speak. Ordinary buffoonery turns into a fun game any skeptic can play! It engenders a warm spot for the wild woo that bumbles by, don't you think? Skeptics are very resourceful people.

[articulett]

That's the problem: you seem to be ignorant about proper use of the shift key.

And some punctuation keys, as well.

Maybe it's a teenager?

[Rodney]

There is video evidence that when confronted with something he could not explain, James Randi flat-out admitted it.

He had gone with a film crew to witness "fire walking" among the natives of some country (I forget which). Randi observed the fire-walkers and examined their feet, and pronounced for the cameras that he found no means of trickery being employed by the natives.

He was not saying that anything paranormal was going on, just that he was unable to detect any trickery. And as is known now, there is no "trickery" involved in firewalking, just simple scientific pricipals which are rather counterintuitive.

The fact that Randi was absolutely honest about this, on camera, without hedging his bets, shows to me that he would indeed admit to ESP or similar phenomenon, were it proven.
Randi was honest on camera, but I'm not sure about his response to an e-mail that I sent him on this subject. In this old video that delphi_ote diligently located in response to my inquiry --
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3999493355358083404 -- Randi
stated (beginning at minute and second 20:33 of the video):

"I've always been mystified by the reports that certain people had the
ability to walk on red-hot embers or rocks or ash or actual flames and
I'd never had the opportunity to see it and I'd often wondered about
the accuracy of the reports." A short while later, after witnessing
the firewalking demonstration, he examined the sole of a firewalker's
foot and stated: "That sole is no tougher than mine; that's no tougher
than mine and yet the man can do it. I don't think I could." Finally,
at the end of the firewalking segment, he stated: "I don't know, it's
got me buffaloed."

I then e-mailed Randi about this, and he responded that he did make the
statement about being "buffaloed" in an NBC documentary, but the rest of
his statement was edited out. He claims that he followed the "buffaloed" comment with: "But I'm sure that with some careful investigation, we'd come up with a solution."

The problem I have with Randi's version is the inconsistency between saying: "I don't know, it's got me buffaloed", and then: "But I'm sure that with some careful investigation, we'd come up with a solution." If Randi had simply said: "I don't know", his alleged follow-on statement makes sense, but I don't understand why he would have added "it's got me buffaloed" if he really thought there was a logical explanation.

[articulett]

Randi said he was buffaloed because it's a term normal people use when they don't know how someone performed their magic trick.

Does Rodney make sense to anyone else? I know he's a creationist, right-wing t'ai type... Just wondering?

Hey... Rodney... meet plumjam-- you guys should really hit it off!

[Slimething]

Does Rodney make sense to anyone else?

No. At least, not in any sense that I would like to admit. He's kinda like the ant-skeptic. That is, someone who will believe that a god-alien from a different planet causes water to turn solid as opposed to the weather merely getting cold.

Who else would believe in a global medical conspiracy suppressing cayce when even the cayce institute won't back up the quack's research?

Hey... Rodney... meet plumjam-- you guys should really hit it off!

I'm not sure it's time to lump plumjam in with rodney yet. Perhaps plumjam has a smidge of perception left that will allow him to avoid that camp. :confused:

[articulett]

Rodney, and/or Plumjam,-- just out of curiosity... what brought you to this forum? Did you think you have something valuable to share? Did you think you might learn something? I really would like to know.

[JoeEllison]

Rodney, and/or Plumjam,-- just out of curiosity... what brought you to this forum? Did you think you have something valuable to share? Did you think you might learn something? I really would like to know.

Maybe because this is a place where they will get attention and be treated as though they have the ability to learn to think critically on some level? That, and because this is a well-moderated forum, we are not allowed to say exactly what we think of them?:cool:

[articulett]

No. At least, not in any sense that I would like to admit. He's kinda like the ant-skeptic. That is, someone who will believe that a god-alien from a different planet causes water to turn solid as opposed to the weather merely getting cold.

Who else would believe in a global medical conspiracy suppressing cayce when even the cayce institute won't back up the quack's research?



I'm not sure it's time to lump plumjam in with rodney yet. Perhaps plumjam has a smidge of perception left that will allow him to avoid that camp. :confused:

I see your point. Rodney had more in common with rttjc-- say, where did he go... he's probably a sock puppet here somewhere.

[DarkMagician]

I'd say that James Randi has one huge bias: that crazy thing commonly called "Reality."

[xingyifa]

I think it would be fair to say that Randi has personal biases against woo. Why else create an organization to fight it?

The challege is unbiased. End of story.

[Normal Dude]

... with rttjc-- say, where did he go... he's probably a sock puppet here somewhere.

Great, now you've jinxed us. :boggled:

[articulett]

Great, now you've jinxed us. :boggled:

Via the "law of attraction", eh?

Much as I'd love to have the power to jinx people... I live on planet reality where I can't really make a dent in woo-- I can't draw it, and I can't repel it

--I just try to educate against it and hope that a few smart seeds are planted in the minds of those who will plant it in the minds of others. That's the thing about reality-- you can't promise magic, salvation, and the like. But science works a lot better when you have actual goals than woo ever has. James Randi is a hero to me.

I find him much more fair, balanced, intelligent, and honest than any and all of his critics. They just don't like the fact that he's the messenger with the message that nobody gets a pass on "reality".

[Slimething]

I can't understand the seeming need for woo. The credulous seem to have an almost biological taste for exciting nonsense. If they only spent the energy on studying nature, they would see that it has all the complexity and awe-inspiring potential they would ever need. Very sad that, instead of education and marvel, they choose lies and self-deception.

[Normal Dude]

I can't understand the seeming need for woo. The credulous seem to have an almost biological taste for exciting nonsense. If they only spent the energy on studying nature, they would see that it has all the complexity and awe-inspiring potential they would ever need. Very sad that, instead of education and marvel, they choose lies and self-deception.

This is something that has been bothering me as well. For example, Earth's creatures are so bizarre and amazing that I can always find something new to boggle at. I mean look at flamingos! And the Narwhal! And even water bears! And half the stuff in the deep sea! There is so much that is bizarre and beautiful to marvel at right in front of us. I'm even considering changing my major to zoology. To substitute all of the natural beauty around us for superstitions is just, well, sad...

[articulett]

This is something that has been bothering me as well. For example, Earth's creatures are so bizarre and amazing that I can always find something new to boggle at. I mean look at flamingos! And the Narwhal! And even water bears! And half the stuff in the deep sea! There is so much that is bizarre and beautiful to marvel at right in front of us. I'm even considering changing my major to zoology. To substitute all of the natural beauty around us for superstitions is just, well, sad...

Yes... and we can know that they are all related... we live in a time where we not only can see DNA and Darwin's theory proven in technicolor detail-- but we know the code-- we can tell how closely any two life forms are to each other--you and your pets...your pets and a carrot... we can tell how far back in time they shared an ancestor and what that ancestor was likely to be! That's way more thrilling than any damn bible code or anything woo can offer. And it's true--and comprehensible to anyone interested in the subject. And it's true whether you "believe" it or not. My field is genetics, but I know that astronomy, astrobiology, and neurology all have equally amazing discoveries-- and we are the first humans to be able to KNOW this stuff.

Once you begin to grasp the actual facts-- woo seems so lacking and useless in comparison.

[PBTree]

The only argument they have is that "something/someone must have made it". But that doesn't work when they insist it is some god type being and they are then asked who made this being.

<standard reply no 666.6A - He is infinite>

Their view is that gods can be infinite but there is no way something as trivial as a universe(s) can be.

++

One question I would ask the woo'ers is: If this god being made everyone and he can be a nasty type because he used his ability to bump off most of the world with a large flood and a couple of cities full of people called sodom and gomorrah, surely bumping off his creation the devil, wouldn't be too hard ????

Then we would have peace etc etc...
++

Bit off track I know but I couldn't help myself, the devil made me ask.

[Flo]

I can't understand the seeming need for woo. The credulous seem to have an almost biological taste for exciting nonsense. If they only spent the energy on studying nature, they would see that it has all the complexity and awe-inspiring potential they would ever need. Very sad that, instead of education and marvel, they choose lies and self-deception.

Very simple: unlike education, lies and self-deception don't involve work.

[JimTheBrit]

'I always have an out'
"The Rawlins quote has been dangled endlessly. The fact is that the "out" I referred to is the simple fact the tests would be airtight against trickery or misinterpretation. Either Rawlins (for whom I have much respect, despite our falling out) misunderstood, or chose not to understand. I opt for the former." Randi - Swift newsletter, vol. 2 no. 2, 1998 (page 3)

[Rodney]

Randi said he was buffaloed because it's a term normal people use when they don't know how someone performed their magic trick.
Is firewalking a magic trick?

[alfaniner]

...
I'm really skeptical about that part. Why would anyone call in a group of debunkers to be impartial? That makes no sense. Randi was there to debunk. That's what he does. ...

I believe that even Randi himself says he is not a "debunker". He often says he would be quite excited to prove the existence of a paranormal phenomenon (under proper observing conditions), which is why he is offering the million dollars.

[Big Les]

Is firewalking a magic trick?

I would say so. Just as Derren Brown's recent broken-glass walking trick was... a magic trick. Just because it relies upon counter-intuitive physics rather than outright deception or illusion, doesn't stop it being a magic trick.

[Slimething]

I believe that even Randi himself says he is not a "debunker". He often says he would be quite excited to prove the existence of a paranormal phenomenon (under proper observing conditions), which is why he is offering the million dollars.

I sit corrected, thanks. My point was that I could not believe the claim that Randi was there to be a potted plant, as the OP claimed. I used "debunker" instead of "scholar" because it fit the situation better.

[tkingdoll]

Well, some of the parapsychologists themselves weren't convinced by the demonstrations. You just probably didn't hear about that.

Oh please. Most parapsychologists are wooer than woo.

plumjam: Randi was a stage magician. This makes him extremely qualified to spot when people are using trickery. He uses this skill to 'out' the trickery employed by those claiming paranormal abilities. Scientists can be easily fooled by very mundane tricks simply because they are not looking for them.

For example, I can easily fool a doctor into believing I have slowed my pulse down to the point where it stops. But I couldn't fool Randi into believing it. Why not?

[DRBUZZ0]

I don't know that James Randi is fair and balanced. He always assumes that the claims of the paranormal are false and that they can be proven so, and therefore the claimant either will not be willing to be tested under controlled conditions, or the effect will fall apart in even semi-controlled conditions, once it is examined.

This seems like it would be a problem, just starting off with an assumption like that. However, it turns out that it has, thus far, always been correct. So, I'm not sure that I can have a problem with that ;-)

[ponderingturtle]

Oh please. Most parapsychologists are wooer than woo.

plumjam: Randi was a stage magician. This makes him extremely qualified to spot when people are using trickery. He uses this skill to 'out' the trickery employed by those claiming paranormal abilities. Scientists can be easily fooled by very mundane tricks simply because they are not looking for them.


Exactly, most scientists have a view of reality that is at odds with say molecules conspireing together to fool the chemist that they react in a certain way. So they do not expect deception and don't know how to look for it.

Magicians are specialists in deception and how to fool people, so it is a natural position for them to take.

[DRBUZZ0]

Oh please. Most parapsychologists are wooer than woo.

plumjam: Randi was a stage magician. This makes him extremely qualified to spot when people are using trickery. He uses this skill to 'out' the trickery employed by those claiming paranormal abilities. Scientists can be easily fooled by very mundane tricks simply because they are not looking for them.

For example, I can easily fool a doctor into believing I have slowed my pulse down to the point where it stops. But I couldn't fool Randi into believing it. Why not?

The difference, My darling, is that few doctors spend their days treating patients they know are probably using trickery or lying for the express purpose of fooling them into thinking something is not the case.


But I am sure you know that already. The problem is that most of the "scientists" who are fooled by such tests are experts in a field which does not pertain directly to human perception or illusions of site and mind.

Here is an excellent posting I found on a blog about bad science and skepticism. I think you guys should check it out: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=14

http://depletedcranium.com/randiscience.jpg

[patrick767]

Crikey, what is all this stuff about straw men? I've only been on this forum for half a day and it's about the 6th or 7th time I've been accused of creating a straw man. I might have grown up in the countryside but I've still never seen a straw man.


It's the 6th or 7th time because you use straw men so frequently. I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the term, but it's certainly not a creation of the JREF forum or "skeptics". As others have suggested, look up "logical fallacy" and learn.

[tkingdoll]

The difference, My darling, is that few doctors spend their days treating patients they know are probably using trickery or lying for the express purpose of fooling them into thinking something is not the case.


But I am sure you know that already.

Aye. In fact I said so in my post, right where it says "Scientists can be easily fooled by very mundane tricks simply because they are not looking for them."

You're funny when you've come back from a suspension. Perhaps you should be suspended more often :D

[DRBUZZ0]

Aye. In fact I said so in my post, right where it says "Scientists can be easily fooled by very mundane tricks simply because they are not looking for them."

You're funny when you've come back from a suspension. Perhaps you should be suspended more often :D

Yeah I know. But I wanted to look smart like I was saying something that I had discovered or insiteful. Sorry if it seemed patronizing to just reword what you said, but lets face it: Even if I tried to gain some recognition at your expense, it's sort of a Robin Hood tale to me. I mean you have some much good will, populatiry and admiration that it's like stealing a penny from the queen.

Also I wanted to get more traffic to my site.

[sts60]

well, I don't know James Randi personally, but I do remember one experiment he took part in on British TV to investigate whether homeopathy had any basis or not, and just before the experiment took place the cameras were kept running, and happened to be focussed on him and his skpetical buddies in the lab. They were all joking and laughing, talking about what nonsense it all was, just before the homeopath entered the room, when they sat up like naughty school boys.
Obviously from what they said they were against the whole idea, and unsurprisingly they found it to be "fraudulent", while they were supposed to be "impartial, rational" witnesses to the experiment,
this just shows how fraudulent the whole set up is... having a Skeptic monitoring your experiments will obviously be a complete disadvantage because the whole intellectual and ideological approach of the Skeptic is already skewed towards the materialist explanation of reality,
if you get me ;)

You like to say how inflexible skeptics and scientists are, while steadfastly promoting as an example (homeopathy) which in over two centuries has failed to produce any credible evidence or even a coherent theory of how it might work. Yet this impressive record of abject failure has made not a dent in your belief.

Yes, I get it quite well. You don't like it when people don't indulge your beliefs without evidence, so you're projecting your own qualities on others.

[DRBUZZ0]

You like to say how inflexible skeptics and scientists are, while steadfastly promoting as an example (homeopathy) which in over two centuries has failed to produce any credible evidence or even a coherent theory of how it might work. Yet this impressive record of abject failure has made not a dent in your belief.

Yes, I get it quite well. You don't like it when people don't indulge your beliefs without evidence, so you're projecting your own qualities on others.

I agree with this. I'd have a problem with always assuming the paranormal or something similar is bunk... if not for the fact that it seems to have a perfect trackrecord.

It comes down to "Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary proof"

If something is not only has never been proven but also flies in the face of well established knowledge and principals, with little explanation for it and no consistent and well-grounded theory for why it might be, and if this claim has been around for some time, with ample opportunities for it to be proven, or at least validated as credible, and it has failed to do so.

There just comes a time when you have to say "This is effectively, for all intents and purposes, for all practical reasons disproven. It's just come around so many times and been shot down so many times, that there's no point in going through the whole game again. It's just isn't true"

[Ashles]

Out of interest plumjam, who SHOULD perform scientific research or paranormal tests?

Obviously not skeptics as they have a biased opinion.
Presumably by extension believers also cannot test as they too have a biased opinion.

I guess we have to find people who genuinely and demonstrably have no opinion whatsoever on a subject. Where do we get these people?

Or, hmm, here's a thought, what about we design some sort of process/test/experiment that would yield results independent of the opinion or personal bias of anyone involved. Oh hang on...

[brodski]

Is firewalking a magic trick?

yes it is, in the same way that Derren brown walking across broken glass is, or people having paving slabs broken on their chests whilst laying on a bed of nails is.

The "trick" is in the presentation.

[tkingdoll]

Yeah I know. But I wanted to look smart like I was saying something that I had discovered or insiteful. Sorry if it seemed patronizing to just reword what you said, but lets face it: Even if I tried to gain some recognition at your expense, it's sort of a Robin Hood tale to me. I mean you have some much good will, populatiry and admiration that it's like stealing a penny from the queen.

Also I wanted to get more traffic to my site.

I respect your honesty and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Which these days is called a blog.

Is plumjam the new mayday/bigfig?

[T'ai Chi]

Oh please. Most parapsychologists are wooer than woo.


Well your belief may be correct, but I'm talking about specific parapsychologists at the lab at the time of the incident, not any vague referring to 'most parapsychologists'.

[DRBUZZ0]

Out of interest plumjam, who SHOULD perform scientific research or paranormal tests?

Obviously not skeptics as they have a biased opinion.
Presumably by extension believers also cannot test as they too have a biased opinion.

I guess we have to find people who genuinely and demonstrably have no opinion whatsoever on a subject. Where do we get these people?

Or, hmm, here's a thought, what about we design some sort of process/test/experiment that would yield results independent of the opinion or personal bias of anyone involved. Oh hang on...

Well, in science you would try to remove the opinion and human basis. Now obviously you can't do that completely. You have to assume that in certain matters, for example reading a digital dial on an instrument, that the human is capable of telling one number from the other.

But one would want to have it done in a manner which is vigorously examined so as to ensure that all interpretation is, wherever possible, removed, and the
observations are as empirical and one-dimensional as possible.

Also, one would want to have the experiment observed and scrutinized in as many manners possible, since the burden of proof is on the one looking to prove their hypothesis. And these results and the nature of the experiment, are, of course, open to criticism and peer review as well as independent attempts to validate it.

This sort of thing: Settling a debate by an experiment to prove a hypothesis correct or incorrect is not new at all. It's very well established, and although occasionally not perfect, it comes reasonably close when properly done.


I do not see why there is any need to have a proclaimed person of no opinion do it. If done properly, it should be such that any person would see the same things. And, if the person proposing it is truly looking for the scientific facts, they should really have no objection to having the process scrutinized or having additional controls or observations to assure accuracy added to the procedure.

[CFLarsen]

Well your belief may be correct, but I'm talking about specific parapsychologists at the lab at the time of the incident, not any vague referring to 'most parapsychologists'.

...without naming these "specific parapsychologists" specifically... :rolleyes:

[Zep]

wonderful, so he makes no claim even to be a humble scientist, yet in the media and on forums like this he sets himself up as someone we can trust to tell us what is truth and falsehood. Hopefully some of you will manage to see through this.So, in your world, only "humble scientists" can be trusted with truth and falsehood?

Are you a scientist, by any remote possible chance?

[Cabby]

Well, in science you would try to remove the opinion and human basis. Now obviously you can't do that completely. You have to assume that in certain matters, for example reading a digital dial on an instrument, that the human is capable of telling one number from the other.


That's why double blind tests to remove bias are so important. Your mention of humans reading values on dials reminded me of the Jacques Benveniste experiments in water memory. I'm no scientist so I'm happy for someone to clarify the details for me, but from what I remember he claimed that water which had been 'charged' in some way with contact with an active substance could affect the white blood cell count in blood samples. When the observers were aware of which samples had been treated with the 'charged' liquid their counts of blood cells showed an effect. However, once a double blind trial was performed and no-one knew which samples had been treated and which hadn't, the effect disappeared.

Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, is a powerful thing but fortunately, if you design your tests appropriately, you can remove it from consideration. True facts will shine out whether you believe in them or not, that's the magic of scientific method. It might take some time, but it'll get there eventually.

[articulett]

Is firewalking a magic trick?
Nah... the magic trick is saying that you are doing it with your mind-- the facts are a bit more prosaic... it has to do with heat conductivity and length of time on the coals-- Magicians don't always know science just like scientists aren't always up on the ways they can be tricked. Skepticism brings them together in perfect harmony...

ETA-- damn... I posted that and see tons have already given the same answer--only better. It's hard to be the first at JREF.

[articulett]

That's why double blind tests to remove bias are so important. Your mention of humans reading values on dials reminded me of the Jacques Benveniste experiments in water memory. I'm no scientist so I'm happy for someone to clarify the details for me, but from what I remember he claimed that water which had been 'charged' in some way with contact with an active substance could affect the white blood cell count in blood samples. When the observers were aware of which samples had been treated with the 'charged' liquid their counts of blood cells showed an effect. However, once a double blind trial was performed and no-one knew which samples had been treated and which hadn't, the effect disappeared.

Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, is a powerful thing but fortunately, if you design your tests appropriately, you can remove it from consideration. True facts will shine out whether you believe in them or not, that's the magic of scientific method. It might take some time, but it'll get there eventually.

Bingo. And I get bonus points, because I deduced this from your first post.

And double blind is not the only way to remove bias. Randi tells Sylvia to pick subjects that believe in her talents-- give them each readings without telling who the reading is for-- and see if they pick out the right reading for them. Simple. Fair and Balanced. Like his astrology charts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw

That's the way we do science, folks!

[Zep]

That's why double blind tests to remove bias are so important. Your mention of humans reading values on dials reminded me of the Jacques Benveniste experiments in water memory. I'm no scientist so I'm happy for someone to clarify the details for me, but from what I remember he claimed that water which had been 'charged' in some way with contact with an active substance could affect the white blood cell count in blood samples. When the observers were aware of which samples had been treated with the 'charged' liquid their counts of blood cells showed an effect. However, once a double blind trial was performed and no-one knew which samples had been treated and which hadn't, the effect disappeared.

Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, is a powerful thing but fortunately, if you design your tests appropriately, you can remove it from consideration. True facts will shine out whether you believe in them or not, that's the magic of scientific method. It might take some time, but it'll get there eventually.Close.

As Randi told the story at TAM4, it was one of his assistants who was "cheating". They were doing the counts of blood cells or something down a microscope, and logging them. For some samples, when this person did the count, if it didn't agree with what Beneviste had expected it to be, they simply recorded what was expected by Benveniste, not what was actually counted! :eek:

Randi (and the Horizon team?) simply ensured that this practice was eliminated (he explains it in detail in his books). And lo and behold, the results turned out to be far less dramatic... ;)

You need to be aware that in French research establishments, people like Dr. Benveniste were "God" - their word, their views, were lore and not questionable.

That whole episode was a great pity because Benveniste did do some excellent research previously.

[skeptifem]

And some punctuation keys, as well.

Maybe it's a teenager?


...who cares?

[articulett]

...who cares?

Teens are expected to be self important-- but adults are expected to develop those frontal lobes. I'd cut a teen more slack. A brain damaged person too. But a garden variety woo is fair game.

I was wooish as a teen-- but it was before the internet-- and I don't think I was this wooish-- nor would I have the audacity to think I had something to preach at others--

I enjoy the anonymity of the internet--but it does take away the knowledge as to whether someone may be mentally ill, a child, or a stalker. I might curtail my barbs if I had knowledge of such info. I have a teenager. I teach teenagers. I don't talk to teenagers the way I talk to friends because most teenagers don't make good company for adults --plus they tend to take things a little more seriously than adults do--it's the first time dealing with adult situations and adult feelings--

Why do you care that I mentioned it? You wouldn't care if you knew another poster was immature for a good reason-- or off kilter for a good reason? Wouldn't you be a tad nicer-- or more likely just to avoid them? If you knew someone was elderly would you tone down your slang and write more formally-- I would. I think most people presume the audience is similar to themselves.

A young persons failure to use the shift key or punctuation is expected; whereas, for an adult--it seems "immature" or a sign of stupidity. At least it does to me-- hence my comment. When considering whether to read (and goad) further or to click "ignore", one considers such possibilities. I don't find myself very interested in what most teens have to say... and I'm sure they feel similarly about what I have to say.

Like most people, I like to hang out with people who are most like me --especially those who like me and inspire me--and I avoid those who'd like to avoid me.

[tkingdoll]

Close.

As Randi told the story at TAM4, it was one of his assistants who was "cheating". They were doing the counts of blood cells or something down a microscope, and logging them. For some samples, when this person did the count, if it didn't agree with what Beneviste had expected it to be, they simply recorded what was expected by Benveniste, not what was actually counted! :eek:



Memory is a funny thing, because I remember him telling that same story as the assistant simply not counting the specimens which didn't fit the theory, rather than recording a false number.

[brodski]

And some punctuation keys, as well.

Maybe it's a teenager?

Well, he claims to have watched the 2002 horizon program when he was "about 12". But as nails says, who cares?

[Big Les]

As he's explained, he'd be willing to cut a teenager more slack, but otherwise it's a potential indicator of immaturity, lazyness, or a lack of intellectual capacity. I think it's absolutely fair enough to bring it up.

[albie]

There was that time with that channel 4 show where he failed to be as good as the psychics at cold reading and they didn't show it on the programme.

[Big Les]

Can you be more specific? A reference, perhaps?

[albie]

It was called THE ULTIMATE PSYCHIC CHALLENGE.

Can't give you a link because of this stupid 15 postings thing.

It was on channel 4. Randi came on with a false name and tried to use cold reading. But he had no takers. It failed. They didn't show it on the program. It was cut. (maybe he had no luck because he was obviously James Randi and everyone knew him.)

A "real" psychic managed much better. although Randi's breakdown of the psychics text does increase my doubts.

Randi managed to fool one lady with his reading but it was because he's had people research her, to show that it's easy to find out things about people without them knowing.

I also recall something about Randi misquoting some scientist. I think it was Robert Jahn and his random generator test for psychokinesis.

But I can't find anything on the web about it anymore. Not sure it was Jahn.

The accusation was that Jahn was misquoted to make it look like he thought psychokineses was ridiculous.

The scientist complained that words taken from an entirley different conversation were used and that he'd never said psychokinesis was ridiculous.

But as I say...can't find anything anymore.

[albie]

google "ultimate psychic challenge" and check out the 3rd linkm down.

"Three Randiesque escapes

I should first note that Mr. Randi may consider himself fortunate on at least three counts: (1) The edited version omitted his first futile but extended attempts at cold reading which was so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show. (2) The editing omitted what was probably the single most impressive piece of evidence, told to me beforehand in the Green Room and later to the audience, of an anonymous and untraceable booking made by a grieving father for a private reading with Keith Charles, the medium, who described to him the detailed contents and design of a sealed letter that had been placed, unbeknown to the father, in the coffin of his daughter by her sister. When Mr Randi asserted what he has since reiterated on his website, that all such messages could be attributable to cold reading as evidenced in Ian Rowland's instruction book, it was lucky for him that no-one had an opportunity to challenge this insult to our credulity. Even with hot reading prior research at his disposal, a stage illusionist could not have struck oil this rich. Charles himself, exceptionally restrained, was shut up, doubtless because of the severe time overrun. Finally, (3), it was lucky for Mr. Randi that Charles was given no opportunity to say why the $1m challenge was both misleading and worthless, an omission I hope to remedy below."

[Gib]

the point is, he'd already made his mind up ... anti-scientific
A scientific test requires you to test in such a way that it doesn't matter what you already think about the outcome.
It does not require that everybody involved actually thinks the probability of success is exactly 50%.
Randi knows the theory, and has seen many tests in his time. Everything he's seen so far has shown homeopathy to be useless.

The good thing about this is that even homeopathy believers are able to conduct their own tests, and as long as the tests are done properly, we can learn something!

[Big Les]

That's surprising, because effective cold reading is not overly difficult to achieve. But by its nature some readings will be better than others (as "real" psychics are) and though he may have struck out on that occassion, he's managed it fine on others, and so have other sceptics (Ian Rowland and Derren Brown spring to mind). One poor performance should not detract from the general point that cold readers overall perform as well as "real" psychics. That may be why the section was dropped. A believer may see that as dishonest, but I would argue that in making the general point that cold readers can (and more often than not, do) achieve comparable results with "real" psychics, it's fair enough to show a reading that was successful instead. Unless you want to claim that the "real" TV psychics don't leave out or edit the readings that don't go so well...

[CLD]

google "ultimate psychic challenge" and check out the 3rd linkm down.

Consider the source. It was written by major woo, Montague Keen.

"Montague Keen is a psychic researcher, journalist, agricultural administrator, magazine editor and farmer. A member of the Council of the Society for Psychical Research for 55 years, chairman of its Image and Publicity Committee and secretary of its Survival Research Committee, he was principal investigator of the Scole Group of physical mediums, and author of the Scole Report, published in the Proceedings of the SPR (Vol 54 Pt 220) in 1999 with his co-investigators Professors Arthur Ellison and David Fontana."

[JimTheBrit]

google "ultimate psychic challenge" and check out the 3rd linkm down.

"Three Randiesque escapes" [etc]

Randi's response from way back when (http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html).

[DRBUZZ0]

Memory is a funny thing, because I remember him telling that same story as the assistant simply not counting the specimens which didn't fit the theory, rather than recording a false number.

It's not uncommon for small details like that of stories to change, even if the person is being honest and the story is generally accurate. Nor is it odd for a person to miss-recall the things which the person says later on.

I'm just saying this because I don't think Randi or TK are lying. It could be that he spoke it differently on two different occasions for example saying that one didn't count them/saying one did not count all of them/saying one put down too small a number/saying they put a false number, be it zero or otherwise.

And actually in police work, there is a lot of suspicion about people who can give a very clear recollection about a crime and give it many times with not even the slightest change in detail. It's natural for someone to change from "I called the police then ran back to see if he was breathing" to "I checked if he was breathing then went to call the police and then I went back to see if he was still breathing and I thought he was but later he wasn't" or "I waited around for a few minutes" to "I left for a second and then came back and waited"

One reason it is hard to fool some good investigators is striking a balance between the natural inconsistencies that one might make in a panic or after thinking something over many times vrs. being scripted vrs. having too many inconsistencies or seeming like you're making it up.


This seems pretty mild to me and I wouldn't make a big deal about the exacts...

[ponderingturtle]

Memory is a funny thing, because I remember him telling that same story as the assistant simply not counting the specimens which didn't fit the theory, rather than recording a false number.

What I remember from the DVD a few months ago was that the assistant would if an number that did not fit what she was looking for was found, she would do a count some where else on the slide. Not throwing away exactly in terms of specimen, but throwing out the data point for a more favorable one.

[articulett]

Memory is a funny thing, because I remember him telling that same story as the assistant simply not counting the specimens which didn't fit the theory, rather than recording a false number.

I remember it similarly... I think the assistant was treating samples that weren't "as expected" as artifacts--

I'm sure it's on the TAM tapes, right.

[articulett]

What I remember from the DVD a few months ago was that the assistant would if an number that did not fit what she was looking for was found, she would do a count some where else on the slide. Not throwing away exactly in terms of specimen, but throwing out the data point for a more favorable one.

Thanks... I was writing while you posted this. It answers my question.

[articulett]

As he's explained, he'd be willing to cut a teenager more slack, but otherwise it's a potential indicator of immaturity, lazyness, or a lack of intellectual capacity. I think it's absolutely fair enough to bring it up.

Thanks! (And I'm a she).
Also--love your Sean of Dead avatar.

[tkingdoll]

What I remember from the DVD a few months ago was that the assistant would if an number that did not fit what she was looking for was found, she would do a count some where else on the slide. Not throwing away exactly in terms of specimen, but throwing out the data point for a more favorable one.

Gotcha. Thanks!

[T'ai Chi]

'I always have an out'

comes to mind.

Even if it is true, doesn't seem honest to pretend to be interested in science if you're already convinced you're always right.

[DRBUZZ0]

'I always have an out'

comes to mind.

Even if it is true, doesn't seem honest to pretend to be interested in science if you're already convinced you're always right.

That is probably a good example of a statement which may have not been a good idea to make, if one considers how it could be used to make one look unobjective.

However, I think, within the context, Randi was just being honest about his own confidence that he won't find a situation which will meet the challenge successfully.

I don't see that it's enitely unreasonable for a person of science to be so confident of something that they see something, from a personal perspective at least, as being as close to ensured as would be reasonably possible.

As long as they are willing to entirely change that and eat crow when they are proven wrong... but for some things that's just hypothetical because I'm pretty damn sure it will not happen ;-)

For example, I'll promise you this: You can have 50 bucks if I my car gets hit by a meteorite tonight. And honestly, I am going to say right now, for the record, that you can consider this documentation to be effectively a contract. You will be sent 50 US dollars or a check/money order or other monitory transfer to that value within the next 48 hours or as soon as you can arrange for transfer and give necessary information. (delivery time not withstanding but the money will be sent within 48 hours of the claim by a transfer or delivery method which will take less than 10 days total).

This is if a meteorite of sufficient size to be cause insurance-claim level damage should strike my car and causes such damage, or if a meteorite of large enough size a non-micrometeorite. The definition being hazy, it shall be defined as a meteorite which is visible to the naked eye and obviously a meteorite from one meter away.

If there is any question of whether it technically meets this or is on the line or subject to interpretation, it will be given. In other words, any doubt of it's size is automatically in your favor.

But...

I'm not going to have to pay you 50 dollars.

And I realize there is the possibility that there could be conjecture on this (IE, what if it bounces and hits the car etc). I don't worry about it, because I am not expecting anything for which a reasonable case could be presented to be a meteorite will strike it tonight. (between now and standard sunrise in the US Eastern Time Zone...) Which sunrise? Astronomical? Nautical? First light or full rise? I don't think it matters.. I doubt that subject will need to be tackled

[Slimething]

For example, I'll promise you this: You can have 50 bucks if I my car gets hit by a meteorite tonight. ...This is if a meteorite of sufficient size to be cause insurance-claim level damage should strike my car and causes such damage, or if a meteorite of large enough size a non-micrometeorite. The definition being hazy, it shall be defined as a meteorite which is visible to the naked eye and obviously a meteorite from one meter away...

But...

I'm not going to have to pay you 50 dollars.

Especially if you're in the car when it gets hit! :)

[articulett]

But you got to hand it to t'ai for irony.

Even if it is true, doesn't seem honest to pretend to be interested in science if you're already convinced you're always right.

Isn't T'ai the guy who is certain he is always right? The one who can't be swayed by things like evidence. Decent evidence will sway any skeptic. Who doesn't want magic to be true?

[Zep]

Memory is a funny thing, because I remember him telling that same story as the assistant simply not counting the specimens which didn't fit the theory, rather than recording a false number.You could well be right! We were both at TAM4! Maybe I'm misremembering the specific details...

Whatever, the reasoning and the effect were the same: Misleading (i.e. unreliable) data being produced, based on "expected" results, not "actual" measurements. In summary, manipulating the data to fit predetermined results. For reputable scientists, it doesn't get much worse than that...

[CFLarsen]

'I always have an out'

comes to mind.

Even if it is true, doesn't seem honest to pretend to be interested in science if you're already convinced you're always right.

Nice twist: Trying to make Randi appear to be a close-minded anti-science guy.

Randi isn't saying that he is "always right". He is saying that he always has an out, because he is right. He is going with what science has taught us. He has made it abundantly clear that he will be eager to change his mind, when faced with new evidence.

Once again, you tried to twist the truth, in order to make the skeptics you fear look bad. But got caught, as usual.

[T'ai Chi]

What about 'always' don't you understand? It isn't talking about probability... it is talking about always being right.

Doesn't seem open minded.

[DRBUZZ0]

What about 'always' don't you understand? It isn't talking about probability... it is talking about always being right.

Doesn't seem open minded.


Yeah, it may not have been the best thing to come out and say, given how many would tend to jump all over something like that. But eh...



Guess who's not getting 50 bucks.

[Soapy Sam]

There's nothing wrong with bias, if you're right.

[Alice Shortcake]

Fair and balanced like FOX NEWS?

:jaw:

[brodski]

Fair and balanced like FOX NEWS?

:jaw:

I'm pretty sure that plumjam was using it as a rhetorical device, Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, in fact they even tried to sue over ownership of the term " fair and balanced ".

It is clear that plum jam thinks that neither Fox News nor James Randi are in fact fair or balanced, although he says nothing to support his position.

[CFLarsen]

What about 'always' don't you understand? It isn't talking about probability... it is talking about always being right.

Doesn't seem open minded.

Randi didn't say anything about "always being right". You may repeat this deliberate lie of yours, but it doesn't make it true.

But it's nice of you to admit that you don't have me on ignore.

[albie]

"As a good example — many more will follow! — of the manner in which Keen plays with the truth, in describing the opening of the TV taping session and the obviously failed "cold reading" section of the taping, he writes that it was "so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show." No, it was aborted and edited out simply because the producers had at first felt that I would not be recognized by a UK audience, and that the audience would react accordingly, accepting me as a "real" psychic doing the same tired old act. As my own unscripted question to that audience subsequently showed, the majority of them were well aware of my identity, and being largely believers, they sat there fiercely refusing to respond as they might have done, were they of the opinion that I was a "genuine" psychic reader. I note that the author of this attack conveniently does not mention that fact. Even as I walked into the studio, I heard audience members commenting, "That's James Randi!" and it was evident to me that the planned attempt at "cold reading" would certainly fail; the victims have to believe that the artist has supernatural abilities, or they cannot accept what always follows in such a routine. Even the media's photographers who snapped me before the taping began, called me by name. However, I'd accepted to make the effort, to satisfy the intent of the producer and director of the show. They had visited me in Florida in preparation for the show, and though I was sure I'd be recognized, we agreed to give it a try, with the provision that it could be aborted if it turned out that I was recognized."

Fact is they didn't show it. They don't know if his cold reading had failed or not.
Randi can't say that was the full reason for failing.

If you say " you have a dad called Jim." they either do or they don't. Nothing to do with belief.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"As a good example — many more will follow! — of the manner in which Keen plays with the truth, in describing the opening of the TV taping session and the obviously failed "cold reading" section of the taping, he writes that it was "so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show." No, it was aborted and edited out simply because the producers had at first felt that I would not be recognized by a UK audience, and that the audience would react accordingly, accepting me as a "real" psychic doing the same tired old act. As my own unscripted question to that audience subsequently showed, the majority of them were well aware of my identity, and being largely believers, they sat there fiercely refusing to respond as they might have done, were they of the opinion that I was a "genuine" psychic reader. I note that the author of this attack conveniently does not mention that fact. Even as I walked into the studio, I heard audience members commenting, "That's James Randi!" and it was evident to me that the planned attempt at "cold reading" would certainly fail; the victims have to believe that the artist has supernatural abilities, or they cannot accept what always follows in such a routine. Even the media's photographers who snapped me before the taping began, called me by name. However, I'd accepted to make the effort, to satisfy the intent of the producer and director of the show. They had visited me in Florida in preparation for the show, and though I was sure I'd be recognized, we agreed to give it a try, with the provision that it could be aborted if it turned out that I was recognized."

Fact is they didn't show it. They don't know if his cold reading had failed or not.
Randi can't say that was the full reason for failing.

If you say " you have a dad called Jim." they either do or they don't. Nothing to do with belief.

Sorry?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

the point is, he'd already made his mind up ... anti-scientific

Speaking as someone who saw that programme, why would it matter what frame of mind Randi was in? He didn't do the measurements, he just received the results. So unless he could psychically alter the printed paper inside the envelope with his negative thoughts (how ironic would that be?!) his frame of mind wouldn't matter one jot.

Are you seriously suggesting that, in a double-blind study, that he didn't even conduct, the fact he thought it would fail was what made it fail?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

him and his two mates were supposed to be the judges of the experiment, even when they'd been shown to be laughing, unknowingly, on camera, about the impossibility of a positive result

They were not judges in that sense. They simply received the double-blind results. There was no opportunity for subjective judgement - they simply received the results that an independent, and 'blinded', lab had produced.

The only sense in which they were judging was that I believe they agreed that it was a fair test.

[bjb]

If you say " you have a dad called Jim." they either do or they don't. Nothing to do with belief.

You aren't exactly right about that. For example, if you said my dad's name was Jim, you'd be wrong. His given name is James and he hates to be called Jim. I'd call that a miss but a psychic believer will call it a solid hit (they'd also accept Jimmy, Jimbo, Jamie, etc.). It's called 'shoehorning', where the guesses are re-interpreted until they fit reality.

[magi]

well, from what i've read water is the only liquid that expands when freezing... bit of a mystery to everyone?

Wow. I misjudged you earlier, plumjam. It will not happen again. You have my apologies.

[Locknar]

well, from what i've read water is the only liquid that expands when freezing... bit of a mystery to everyone?

I'm not sure it is a mystery to anyone, other then you (since you asked the question). It has to do with how the molecules align when freezing; as a result it takes up more space in a frozen vs liquid state.

[Oubliette]

can any of you ever imagine James Randi looking at a piece of evidence fairly and admitting that after all he was wrong all along, that maybe ESP exists or such like? be honest

Yes. :)

[articulett]

I'm not sure it is a mystery to anyone, other then you (since you asked the question). It has to do with how the molecules align when freezing; as a result it takes up more space in a frozen vs liquid state.

Plus it's wrong... other liquids expand when frozen as Slimething noted. Plumjam is daft and makes silly assertions as though they were factual. (And Brodski, I really do think he thinks Fox is fair and balanced... he's of that ilk.)

[dannagain]

Is firewalking a magic trick?

Yes. Yes it is