Uri Geller - where's the harm? [Archive]

Ladewig

13th September 2003, 06:02 PM

I am always careful when describing my opinions of Mr. Geller because he has a whole page on his website devoted to legal battles that he has won.

He has sold out of his special quartz crystals, but the page devoted to crystal testimonials does have this disclaimer at the bottom

I, as Uri Geller, cannot substantiate some of these claims, but I do know that as in science some materials are considered good or bad conductors of energy. Crystals are considered efficient conductors and amplifiers of energy. In the USA, NASA used programmed crystals on small aluminium cards to help the astronauts with the problems of weightlessness. The crystals were charged with the earth's mechanical vibration of 7.83 Hertz. The result was that the astronauts were able to spend more time out of the earth's magnetic field without suffering from their previous disorders. Also it is now widely recognised that quartz has an excellent facility for memory storage, be it in the average wrist watch or at the front of modern computer chip technology. Yes, the modern computer is founded on ancient quartz.

The original question was what harm does he do. I consider spreading the story about NASA's programming crystals on aluminum card to protect astronauts to be more harmful than helpful.

T'ai Chi

13th September 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Oh, and remember the dark ages? Superstition and ignorance are dangerous enough.

So I guess I don't get it. Uri is going to somehow plunge us into a new dark ages???

athon

13th September 2003, 07:57 PM

This is always the hardest question to answer, not because it is defficult to respond to, but because if the person needs to ask, they will find it hard to grasp the nature of the outcome.

Science is based on two main principles - the ability to deny what your senses tell you and admit you are wrong (what I call in my science classes, the Principle of Humility); and the concept of having to build on what is already known.

In the past it has been possible for one person to have a grasp of all that is 'known'. Scientists were dabblers in all fields - maths, languages, history etc. These days we rely on people who have small pieces of the knowledge bank and can work together to analyse it, interpret it and exploreit in relation to the every flowing stream of new data and facts.

The strength of the process relies on strong foundations - not accepting something simply because the mysticism is appealing, but because it has its strength in both evidence and the solving of inherent flaws in a theory. People like UG indirectly make this whole process unstable. If people accept that telekinesis is possible, they create a foundation where other sciences can be built on that incorrect assumption.

Now 99% of people do not overtly contribute to this process, in that they do not alter the foundations or build on them. However if it is accepted in out global society that fanciful notions can be accepted as truth without evidence, then even the weakest of foundation stones could waste funding, time, and even lives.

So no, Uri Geller would not be responsible for a new Dark Ages. However there is a balance where every vocal advocate for pseudoscience has to be opposed by a voice of reason that supports the scientific method.

Athon

plindboe

13th September 2003, 08:40 PM

I don't think he does any direct harm, but that's not what bothers people. Here we have a person who lies to people, who shows people he is a superior being by doing cheap tricks, and in turn people around the world believe him and worship him because of it. That's what angers people so much, that this person is worshipped for being an obsessive lier.

Peter :j1:

Peter Morris

13th September 2003, 08:45 PM

This is always the hardest question to answer, not because it is defficult to respond to, but because if the person needs to ask, they will find it hard to grasp the nature of the outcome.

Not really.

Consider, for instance, David blane's latest stunt. Randi's commentry indicates this is a magic trick, but he's presenting it as a genuine feat of endurance.

Compare that to Gellers TV performances where he bends a spoon with a magic trick, but tells people that its a genuine paranormal feat.

I'd like to know why Randi praises Blane, yet is so obsessed with attacking Geller.

reprise

13th September 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by plindboe
I don't think he does any direct harm, but that's not what bothers people. Here we have a person who lies to people, who shows people he is a superior being by doing cheap tricks, and in turn people around the world believe him and worship him because of it. That's what angers people so much, that this person is worshipped for being an obsessive lier.

Peter :j1:

But when people believe him about the cheap tricks and start to worship him because of that ill-founded belief aren't they then more likely to believe him when he writes about healing and follow the advice he gives on that subject?

Zep

13th September 2003, 09:08 PM

This is why Geller is not only a pest, he's dangerous.
I, as Uri Geller, cannot substantiate some of these claims,

Then he should have stopped right there. But on he goes anyway like he DOES do this...

but I do know that as in science some materials are considered good or bad conductors of energy.

Now there's a vague statement if there ever was one. "Energy"? What type(s) of "energy" specifically?

Crystals are considered efficient conductors and amplifiers of energy.

Repeat cow-flops.

In the USA, NASA used programmed crystals on small aluminium cards to help the astronauts with the problems of weightlessness.

He's pretty good at condensing lots of cow-flop into small spaces, isn't he! No details, no references. How did the astronauts use these "magic devices"? What "problems with weightlessness"?

The crystals were charged with the earth's mechanical vibration of 7.83 Hertz.

Piled higher and deeper. Reinforcing one inanity with another.

The result was that the astronauts were able to spend more time out of the earth's magnetic field without suffering from their previous disorders.

On he goes. What "previous disorders"? Which astronauts? How far outside the earth's magnetic field were they? (Never mind that it extends a very long way into space - well above most orbiting levels). How does this "magic device" help?

Also it is now widely recognised that quartz has an excellent facility for memory storage, be it in the average wrist watch or at the front of modern computer chip technology.

Logically invalid connection due to complete lack of technical understanding. Quartz on its own doesn't have any "memory" capability at all. The quartz in a wristwatch is used to maintain frequency accuracy of the watch mechanism, which is electrical. Computer chips are made from molten silicon derived from quartz, impregnated (doped) with other materials in precise ways, and do not work without electricity! Junior school stuff for most of the world. All Geller is doing here is displaying either his vast ignorance, or a vast attempt at deception. Or both.

Yes, the modern computer is founded on ancient quartz.

Another misleading and pointless statement. What has it to do with anything at all, particularly??

The harm is that ignorant people lap this sort of tripe up as though it were gospel. And then they pass it on to others, and worse still, to their children. It's hard enough to get kids interested in real science and how to do it, but when cow manure like this (which I rank at the same depth in the mire as Creationism) clouding their minds, it becomes even harder.

I have a child, and I WILL NOT stand for this.

plindboe

13th September 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by reprise
But when people believe him about the cheap tricks and start to worship him because of that ill-founded belief aren't they then more likely to believe him when he writes about healing and follow the advice he gives on that subject?
Well, yes. But healing in itself isn't harmful. It's only when people choose to turn to healing instead of real medical help that it causes harm, which I can't imagine he has adviced people to do in his writing.(Correct me if I'm wrong)

Peter

CFLarsen

13th September 2003, 11:44 PM

Peter,

Do you believe that Geller is bending spoons by paranormal means? If you do, could you take a look at this article and tell me where he does not use his hands?

Spoon-bending - How Uri Geller really does it! (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/urispoon.htm)

plindboe

14th September 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Peter,

Do you believe that Geller is bending spoons by paranormal means? If you do, could you take a look at this article and tell me where he does not use his hands?

Spoon-bending - How Uri Geller really does it! (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/urispoon.htm)
No! What on Earth made you think that? I merely stated that I don't believe he is harmful. He is deceitful and cons people, and I dislike him for that, but since it's people that love to be conned into believing, he causes no direct harm(that I know of).

(btw, nice article)

CFLarsen

14th September 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by plindboe
No! What on Earth made you think that? I merely stated that I don't believe he is harmful. He is deceitful and cons people, and I dislike him for that, but since it's people that love to be conned into believing, he causes no direct harm(that I know of).

Not you, Peter. I meant Peter. As is Peter Morris....(OK, that could have been clearer..! :))

Originally posted by plindboe
(btw, nice article)

(thank you!)

plindboe

14th September 2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not you, Peter. I meant Peter. As is Peter Morris....(OK, that could have been clearer..! :))

Oh, hehe. :o

Chupacabras

14th September 2003, 01:09 AM

Telling lies is harmful - it misleads others into perceiving reality in a wrong way, and thus making wrong decisions. This can harm your pocket, your ego, your human relations and your body.

UG site has a lot of lies.

Ratman_tf

14th September 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

So I guess I don't get it. Uri is going to somehow plunge us into a new dark ages???

Not him specifically and only, but his deceit fosters an attitude of superstition and ignorance. This leads to bad (http://www.42explore.com/salemwitch.htm) things (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april99/whatley.html).

Renfield

14th September 2003, 01:48 AM

SteveGrenard

14th September 2003, 03:20 AM

It's not a magic trick, just a trick and not a particularly clever one at that.

Blaine has studied the literature of starvation carefully and fully well knows how much weight he will lose and how much starvation he can endure before lapsing into a coma. He is claiming he will stay in the box 44 days, whereas there are examples of hunger strikers in prison (i.e. IRA members) who have lasted up to sixty and even up to 63 days before lapsing into coma and dying.

A man who starved himself to death in 1917 lost 41% of his body wt in 63 days. In 1981 Bobby Sands lost 30% of his body wt in 60 days while in a British prison. Blaine projects he will lose about 23 kgs . Before he started he gained a great deal of weight
because he knows the main determinant of how long he can starve is determined by how much body fat one has.

After two days of starvation the body shifts into starvation mode metabolic state: break down of fat, release of fatty acids and glycerol which is converted into glucose. Muscle burns fatty acids,
conserving glucose for use by the brain, the organ that needs it most.

One problem Blaine will have is salt. If he just drinks water, and does not replenish salt, he could be unconscious by the end of September and the test will end on that note. We'll see.
He probably knows this and if there is any trick, it will be for him to access a supply of salt, perhaps even salt that is been made into coating the walls of his prison. After about 3 weeks with no salt and only water his blood pressure will drop, he will become dizzy and he will pass out. IRA hunger strikers took salt tablets.
It is also possible to dissolve measured doses of salt in the water he is given to drink and its presence is invisible to anyone just looking at it (they would have to taste the water) so this may be another aspect of the trick.

The other problems his stunt will cause are not insurmountable: they would be psychological and physical. Without exercise he will experience muscle cramping and then wasting or atrophy and will need physical therapy to regain the ability to walk afterwards. I have not seen what he is doing but with stasis there is also an increased risk of thromboembolism
which his doctor consultants properly have covered. Is he allowed to take meds? I dont know but an occasional baby aspirin would help in this respect. As far as enduring the psychological trauma Blaine will probably demonstrate that he is extremely strong willed and self disciplined and will be amusing himself with a number of thoughts and activities to help combat mania. Allowing the hooligans to pelt stuff at him is one way for him to externalize and re-focus his emotions.

athon

14th September 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Not really.

Consider, for instance, David blane's latest stunt. Randi's commentry indicates this is a magic trick, but he's presenting it as a genuine feat of endurance.

Compare that to Gellers TV performances where he bends a spoon with a magic trick, but tells people that its a genuine paranormal feat.

I'd like to know why Randi praises Blane, yet is so obsessed with attacking Geller.

Simple. In relation to my last post, Uri Geller supports false reasoning for the tricks he offers. Blaine does not. Hence Geller is contributing to a society where false foundations are created.

As I've said before, the search for answers is not a bad thing. Those who continue to look for extraterrestrial life, search nature for cures, and even put pins into people in the vain hope it might unlock a powerful healing technique are all ultimately contributing to the tools mankind can use to control the world around him. It is when people adopt untested, unquantified and unqualified speculations as robust theories - where they can be built upon as if they were 'true' - that people's lives are adversely affected.

Athon

Peter Morris

14th September 2003, 04:26 AM

Peter,

Do you believe that Geller is bending spoons by paranormal means? If you do, could you take a look at this article and tell me where he does not use his hands?

What gave you that impression?

Why do the Randi fanatics have this idea? Either you worship Randi as a living god, or you believe the woo-woos. Anyone who disagrees with Randi on the slightest point must therefore believe everything Geller or Jon Edwards says.

Read my original post - I specifically said Geller uses conjuring tricks. In my second post, I said <<Compare that to Gellers TV performances where he bends a spoon with a magic trick, but tells people that its a genuine paranormal feat>> If you don't understand this, email Randi and ask him what the words 'conjuring tricks' mean.

How mant times do we have to go through this? Just because I point out some lies Randi told, or tests he runs that don't make sense, this does not indicate that I believe the people he tests.

How many times do have to tell you that before it sinks in? Why do you people have so much trouble understanding this point?

CFLarsen

14th September 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
How many times do have to tell you that before it sinks in? Why do you people have so much trouble understanding this point?

It was a simple question, Peter. No need for this emotional outburst.

Since you don't believe Geller is doing something paranormal, how do you feel about him claiming to be?

SteveGrenard

14th September 2003, 04:54 AM

James Randi and Uri Geller have a long and contentious history going back to when Randi debunked Geller on the Johnny Carson Show and Randi orchestrated with his pal, Leon Jaroff, to write up Geller as a fraud in Time Magazine based on that. At the time Randi was a high ranking representative of CSICOP and there was no JREF. Jaroff brags he debunked Geller to this day. Randi does so sometimes weekly.

Geller sued Randi and no doubt a lot of others involved with this but some probably settled and we heard nothing more. CSICOP defended the suit, it cost them a great deal of money and while
Geller walked away with nothing or next to nothing, the legal fees to CSICOP and Randi were monumental. Randi and CSICOP parted ways some time after that (I do not have the whole time line) and he established JREF. Carson in fact gave JREF a hundred grand a few years back through the Johnny Carson Foundation.

So there is no love lost between Geller and Randi, and Randi obviously hates the man with a vengeance and I am sure the same goes for Geller v. Randi.

I agree .... compared to some, Geller's parlor tricks are completey harmless and the degree of invective Randi uses regularly against Geller is way out of proportion to the nature of his claims.
But the above, IMHO, seems to be the rationale for it.

CFLarsen

14th September 2003, 05:16 AM

Steve,

It is very telling that in a thread dealing with Geller, you manage to take swipes at CSICOP, Randi and JREF.

You don't consider Geller harmful at all?

Do you think that Geller can do anything that is paranormal?

FutileJester

14th September 2003, 06:04 AM

Geller doesn't push my emotional buttons like some more obviously dangerous types, like psychic surgeons. I just harbor a basic disgust towards him for continually saying he can do what he can't, claiming credit for things that he didn't do, and using the legal system to stifle criticism. Like politicians (who I'm usually disgusted with as well).

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Consider, for instance, David blane's latest stunt. Randi's commentry indicates this is a magic trick, but he's presenting it as a genuine feat of endurance.

Compare that to Gellers TV performances where he bends a spoon with a magic trick, but tells people that its a genuine paranormal feat.

I believe Blaine's feat is both a trick and a feat of endurance. Regardless of what tricks are used, it takes extraordinary endurance and discipline just to stay in the box. But the real difference as compared to Geller is that there is no paranormal claim. Blaine may hide how he does a trick, but he doesn't claim (AFAIK) that he is exhibiting any paranormal power or defying known science. Geller does.

14th September 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What does Uri Geller do that's so bad?

AFAIK he receives money for performing his conjuring tricks on TV, and for his books, etc, i.e. he's just an entertainer.

Asking for information here, has he ever, for instance:

- set himself up as a psychic healer

- attempted to start a religion around himself

- charged money for psychic business advice

- given fake messages from dead relatives

or anything similar?

I'm aware of his attempts to help a British soccer team, but I think that was just a publicity stunt for the team, and they got what they paid for - publicity.

I'm unaware of him ever trading on the grief of the bereaved, or anything really nasty like that.

Does anyone have specific information about him doing so? I'm asking for information.

Let me begin by adding my apprecation to that expressed by others regarding your work on the original "Mission Impossible": Thank you.

Let me answer your question by asking one.

Do you have kids? If not, suppose you did. At what age do you think that it would be healthy for them to know that Santa, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy and so on are myths? Why? How are these guys different from Geller? I think that the answer is that institutionalized ignorance impeads a society. It is cancerous.

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by athon

Science is based on two main principles - the ability to deny what your senses tell you

I find some of the things that people come out with on this board utterly incredible!

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by athon
If people accept that telekinesis is possible, they create a foundation where other sciences can be built on that incorrect assumption.

Clearly psychokinesis is possible, and we have a phenomenal amount of evidence suggestive of its existence. But even if there were no evidence at all, it is stupidity beyond belief to declare it as impossible. This misunderstands the nature of science.

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Peter,

Do you believe that Geller is bending spoons by paranormal means? If you do, could you take a look at this article and tell me where he does not use his hands?

Spoon-bending - How Uri Geller really does it! (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/urispoon.htm)

The fact that Geller is not doing it by paranormal means constitutes no evidence whatsoever that it is impossible to acheive by paranormal means.

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Chupacabras
Telling lies is harmful - it misleads others into perceiving reality in a wrong way, and thus making wrong decisions. This can harm your pocket, your ego, your human relations and your body.

UG site has a lot of lies.

So what about the lies that "skeptics" continually come out with?

Such as there is no evidence for paranormal phenomena?

That paranormal phenomena are impossible?

That on average the less well educated believe it, or the gullible and naive, or those that have a poor understanding of probability?

I could go on and on. Lots of harmful lies there. I find "skeptics" disgusting and despicable. They are holding back possible knowledge of what we ultimately are and the ultimate nature of the world that we inhabit.

And they advance a unintelligible metaphysic (ie materialism) which neither reason or evidence can justify, then have the effrontery to claim that science suggests it or even entails it!

Complete stupidity almost beyond belief :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Not him specifically and only, but his deceit fosters an attitude of superstition and ignorance.

I don't see how. What has people believing in macro-psychokinesis have to do with superstition? And it only leads to ignorance if in fact their beliefs are wrong. Got any evidence to suppose their beliefs are incorrect?

14th September 2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I find some of the things that people come out with on this board utterly incredible!

Was in response to:Originally posted by athon

Science is based on two main principles - the ability to deny what your senses tell you

What do you disagree with in this sentence? It personally think that the statement is not inclusive enough. Are you suggesting that the senses trump reality?

De_Bunk

14th September 2003, 07:45 AM

In answer to your original question...

At one time or another., spanning 20 or so years,..(Run a quick check on Google...Israeli press...UK press...Check it yourself...i aint your "go-fer"..)

Oh but "YES"...to all your questions...

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Wanna believe its real" kook...

DB

( 74 posts...and he has to mention Geller... :wink8: )

CFLarsen

14th September 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The fact that Geller is not doing it by paranormal means constitutes no evidence whatsoever that it is impossible to acheive by paranormal means.

Did I say that?

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Was in response to:Originally posted by athon

Science is based on two main principles - the ability to deny what your senses tell you

Nonsensical since science itself ultimately appeals to further sense data to "correct" the original sense data.

What do you disagree with in this sentence? It personally think that the statement is not inclusive enough. Are you suggesting that the senses trump reality? [/B]

The senses are reality.

De_Bunk

14th September 2003, 07:51 AM

Claus...

Go get him...

You are much better than me at turning people up their own "a**'es"....

Respect to you...

DB

14th September 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

So what about the lies that "skeptics" continually come out with?

Such as there is no evidence for paranormal phenomena?

I think that one has to apply the sniff test. The paranormal is cool and it's reality would change everythin we know and do. Hunks of science would have to be rewritten, holy books would have to be read in a new light, scientists would be piling on to come up with the next discovery. None of this has happened.

That paranormal phenomena are impossible?

Only a fool would make that statement, or a person with an agenda to attribute it to someone else. A correct statement might be somerthing like "paranormal phenomena are impossible given our current understanding of what makes things tick"

That on average the less well educated believe it, or the gullible and naive, or those that have a poor understanding of probability?

Never gave this one much thought. I suppose that I might add "or are desperate, or are berieved to the point of being inconsolable, or have a deep disatisfaction with their personal realities, or have lived a lie for so long they have convinced themselves (thinking JE here)". Would you not agree that the most ubiquitous example of paranormal belief is religion? How would you characterize the demographics of believers? Religion, micro-whatevers, same thing.

I could go on and on. Lots of harmful lies there. I find "skeptics" disgusting and despicable. They are holding back possible knowledge of what we ultimately are and the ultimate nature of the world that we inhabit.

Yet, after thousands of years of searching, nada. Micro-whooists? That's it? I find people who seduce fine minds from work that might benefit humanity in more concrete terms pretty disgusting and dispicable, myself. To each his own. I think that the difference between us is that I really don't know, you think that this stuff exists and will be rude and stamp your feet about it

And they advance a unintelligible metaphysic (ie materialism) which neither reason or evidence can justify, then have the effrontery to claim that science suggests it or even entails it!

Well. It does require a rather high level of abstract thought to appreciate the implications of the evidence at hand. Not everyone can do it, which is entirely understandable. It is also understandable that such a situation causes a reversion to religion. Less taxing on the brain, don't ya know? To each his own

Complete stupidity almost beyond belief :rolleyes:

Unquestionably

gnome

14th September 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I find some of the things that people come out with on this board utterly incredible!

Explain how that is so incredible?

gnome

14th September 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The senses are reality.

http://00fun.com/wimg3/0306.gif

I suppose these lines really are bent, because they seem to my senses to be.

14th September 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Nonsensical since science itself ultimately appeals to further sense data to "correct" the original sense data.

The senses are reality.

Okey dokey.

"There once was a handsome young man who was very smart and successful. This young man was a pilot and he flew very nice and expensive aeroplanes with all the latest gadgets. He also did not believe in materialism at all. "Pshaw" he would say to his materialist friends "You have no evidence at all. I believe that there is more than your grubby amterialism" (he said that since he hated grubby with a passion).

One day the handsome young man went on a trip with his wife and her sister in his shiney new plane with all of the latest gizmos. They flew up and up the coast.

The weather started getting very, very cloudy until the handsome young man could not see anything at all outside of the windows. "It is nothing" he declared "my senses ARE reality". "Maybe so", said his beautiful, yet shrewish, young wife. "Why not turn on some of those thingies that you bought instead of buying me that Hermes bag that I wanted so much?"

"Pshaw" said the handsome young man. "My senses are reality and they tell me we are flying strait and level and true".

Just as he was expounding on how he was disgusted with materialists, sceptics, scientists, anyone who demanded "proof" on a mundane plale, his aeroplne hit the ocean at 427 knots with an angle of incline of 30 degrees.

They all died.

The End

Question: What was the handsome young pilots name?

JFK, Jr. But his frinds called him Ian.

Jeff Corey

14th September 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by gnome

http://00fun.com/wimg3/0306.gif

I suppose these lines really are bent, because they seem to my senses to be.
Dega vu all over again.
Didn't Ian originally start his gibberish with the insistence that the checkerboard squares were really different albedos when they were, in fact, identical?
Then there's the Muller-Lyer illusion, the Ponzo illusion, the Horizontal-Vertical illusion, the Herring illusion, Charpentier's illusion and the Ames Room, among others.

De_Bunk

14th September 2003, 08:50 AM

Geller and me...

I ain't got jack sh*t...

Im just a drunken hobo...

So Geller can sue my a** off...all he will get is a soiled blanket and a shopping cart full of coke cans...plus these underpants ive been wearing for four years...

Geller...liar, and will not take any serious testing.....go ahead...sue me...

If you take Randi's test...i'll cash in my cans...at 2c apiece...that could amount to all of $1.20...I'll willinginly pay it to a charity of your choice...

PS...Why havent you given any money to charity lately...

Why don't you strive and cure children with cancer...why don't you donate money for these dying children..after all...you got your "Gift" for free.....why not let dying children benefit from your "Free" gift....

Geller...Your a lying, groping..soon to be pensioner...

( Allegedly...I may be, or not be telling lies...as i am a drunk, mental health issues fu**wit...which can be proven in a court of law...)

Thanks...you "cop a quick feel, liar, jump on any bandwagon thats passing, moron...

Hope this finds you in good spirits...

DB

CFLarsen

14th September 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Didn't Ian originally start his gibberish with the insistence that the checkerboard squares were really different albedos when they were, in fact, identical?

Yes, he did.

The two grey squares are factually identical. It is proof that our senses can deceive us. Ian thinks it is the other way around. His refusal to acknowledge the harsh reality of RGB-values is proof of his own delusional state of mind.

All we need now is for Ian to "perceive" that the train isn't going to hit him.

De_Bunk

14th September 2003, 08:57 AM

"Claus, Claus...he's our man...Can he do it...'course he can.."

Wooooooo Hooooo...

( Finish... with me doing the splits..with a pic of Randi on my underwear)

DB

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Okey dokey.

"There once was a handsome young man who was very smart and successful. This young man was a pilot and he flew very nice and expensive aeroplanes with all the latest gadgets. He also did not believe in materialism at all. "Pshaw" he would say to his materialist friends "You have no evidence at all. I believe that there is more than your grubby amterialism" (he said that since he hated grubby with a passion).

One day the handsome young man went on a trip with his wife and her sister in his shiney new plane with all of the latest gizmos. They flew up and up the coast.

The weather started getting very, very cloudy until the handsome young man could not see anything at all outside of the windows. "It is nothing" he declared "my senses ARE reality". "Maybe so", said his beautiful, yet shrewish, young wife. "Why not turn on some of those thingies that you bought instead of buying me that Hermes bag that I wanted so much?"

"Pshaw" said the handsome young man. "My senses are reality and they tell me we are flying strait and level and true".

Just as he was expounding on how he was disgusted with materialists, sceptics, scientists, anyone who demanded "proof" on a mundane plale, his aeroplne hit the ocean at 427 knots with an angle of incline of 30 degrees.

They all died.

The End

Question: What was the handsome young pilots name?

JFK, Jr. But his frinds called him Ian.

All we experience is ultimately cashed out in terms of the mental. The material world is a model or hypothesis to explain those mental experiences, and is a model or hypothesis only. We know that a material world is not logically necessitated because hypothetically a brain could be stimulated in such a manner that the world appears to be exactly like it is now, except there is no material world and our brain is somewhere else, in another reality perhaps, being appropriately stimulated. This idea is explored in the Matrix films or in virtual reality or in computer games even. In a computer game your avatar can get killed by a train in the computer game environment. How can this be if it is not material?

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, he did.

The two grey squares are factually identical. It is proof that our senses can deceive us. Ian thinks it is the other way around. His refusal to acknowledge the harsh reality of RGB-values is proof of his own delusional state of mind.

That checkered square illusion has been argued about extensively. In the last thread about it I was starting to get people to see my point of view. At the end I don't think anyone was being as forthright as you in holding that I was hopelessly deluded. At the most they were declaring it was purely a semantic issue. Anyone got a link to that thread of about 2 months ago?

14th September 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

All we experience is ultimately cashed out in terms of the mental.

Yup

The material world is a model or hypothesis to explain those mental experiences,

Right diddely right

and is a model or hypothesis only.

Uh oh

We know that a material world is not logically necessitated because hypothetically a brain could be stimulated in such a manner that the world appears to be exactly like it is now,

Yuppsie, posilutely ... you're coming along, Ian

except there is no material world and our brain is somewhere else, in another reality perhaps, being appropriately stimulated.

Perhaps. I would not assert it as fact

This idea is explored in the Matrix films

I get your point but Keanu Reeves is so bad as an actor that it, emotionally, softens your argument

or in virtual reality or in computer games even. In a computer game your avatar can get killed by a train in the computer game environment.

I agree.

How can this be if it is not material?

It is material. Electrons and such. You make one statement that is unknowable, though interesting to discuss. As such it is a waste of time. This is why philosophy is irrelevant and pointless.

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Ed

II
or in virtual reality or in computer games even. In a computer game your avatar can get killed by a train in the computer game environment.
Ed
I agree.
II
How can this be if it is not material?

Ed
It is material. Electrons and such. You make one statement that is unknowable, though interesting to discuss. As such it is a waste of time. This is why philosophy is irrelevant and pointless. [/B]

The point I'm getting at is that a computer game character like Lara Croft dies in the computer game because of rules. It is not the computer game train per se which kills her, but rather the game is programmed in such a way that when the train hits her she dies. Likewise if I'm playing a flying game and I happen to be flying in fog, this doesn't mean that the rules have changed so that I am unable to crash into the ocean.

The real world is like this in that it is described by, and follows rules. More precisely these rules govern what we can expect the course of our sensory experiences to consist of. These rules are referred to as the physical laws of nature and it is the task of science to discern them.

So we have our sensory experiences which change according to rules or physical laws. But how come when 2 or more people look at an object their visual sensory experiences are more or less the same? Well we might appeal to the notion of an external object existing independently of the perceivers which gives rise to their similar sensory experiences. Or we can hypothesize it is the result of an omnipotent consciousness which directly conveys to us all of our sensory experiences, and organizes them in such a manner that our experiences follow rules (physical laws of nature). And there are many other possible hypotheses.

Note though that such speculation is not science, because all science does is attempt to discern what those rules are. Science cannot address the question of why reality follows rules in the first place, or why those rules don't suddenly change etc. All science can do is assume these rules are consistent, that they will not suddenly change etc, and take it from there.

Questions pertaining to why there are rules or physical laws in the first place are not scientific questions, but rather metaphysical questions. It is no more scientific to hypothesize an external mind independent world, then it is to hypothesize an Omnipotent consciousness to explain the course of our sensory experiences.

Peter Morris

14th September 2003, 11:44 AM

To CFLarsen
It was a simple question, Peter. No need for this emotional outburst.

No? Lets look at someone else's reply to me, even after I'd posted my response to your 'simple question'

De_Bunk said, and I believe he was talking to me, In answer to your original question...

At one time or another., spanning 20 or so years,..(Run a quick check on Google...Israeli press...UK press...Check it yourself...i aint your "go-fer"..)

Oh but "YES"...to all your questions...

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Wanna believe its real" kook...

Wanna believe its real" kook indeed. Do you see why I get so annoyed when the Randi worshippers come out with this

And look, he's making claims agaist Geller, he says the answer to ALL my questions are yes: YES, Geller tried to start a religion, YES Geller gives messages from dead people, YES Geller gives psychic business advice, but mister De_bunk cannot be bothered to cite any of those claims. He tells me to do his homework for him.

As for Wanna believe its real" kook let me just repeat what I havew said before, and will doubtless have to say again.

What gave you that impression?

Why do the Randi fanatics have this idea? Either you worship Randi as a living god, or you believe the woo-woos. Anyone who disagrees with Randi on the slightest point must therefore believe everything Geller or Jon Edwards says.

Read my original post - I specifically said Geller uses conjuring tricks. In my second post, I said <<Compare that to Gellers TV performances where he bends a spoon with a magic trick, but tells people that its a genuine paranormal feat>> If you don't understand this, email Randi and ask him what the words 'conjuring tricks' mean.

How mant times do we have to go through this? Just because I point out some lies Randi told, or tests he runs that don't make sense, this does not indicate that I believe the people he tests.

How many times do have to tell you that before it sinks in? Why do you people have so much trouble understanding this point?

Jeff Corey

14th September 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
How mant times do we have to go through this? Just because I point out some lies Randi told, or tests he runs that don't make sense, this does not indicate that I believe the people he tests.

I went through this whole thread and found the same statement on p. 1, but no further detail. What lies? What tests that don't make sense?

CFLarsen

14th September 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No? Lets look at someone else's reply to me, even after I'd posted my response to your 'simple question'

No, why don't we simply focus on what your reaction was to my post, and not engage in dishonest debating techniques?

How can you possibly point to posts that came after your reply to me, as a reason for your reply?? You only referred to my post, so don't try to wipe it off on somebody else.

plindboe

14th September 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point I'm getting at is that a computer game character like Lara Croft dies in the computer game because of rules. It is not the computer game train per se which kills her, but rather the game is programmed in such a way that when the train hits her she dies. Likewise if I'm playing a flying game and I happen to be flying in fog, this doesn't mean that the rules have changed so that I am unable to crash into the ocean.

And suddenly your Matrix comparison doesn't work anymore. When people die in the Matrix they also die in reality.

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by plindboe

And suddenly your Matrix comparison doesn't work anymore. When people die in the Matrix they also die in reality.

But do they cease to exist?

As a matter of fact my Matrix comparison is fine since I haven't been addressing the issue of an afterlife in any case.

Jeff Corey

14th September 2003, 02:41 PM

Oh my, philosophy as derived from bad SF movies.

Where's Mystery Science Theatre 3003 when you need it?

Ian, "Don't worry, that meteor is immaterial. It's just a product of the Universal Mind from the Seventh Dimension."
Crow, "Immaterial? Betcha it busts his material tuchis."

Ratman_tf

14th September 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I don't see how. What has people believing in macro-psychokinesis have to do with superstition?

Because I believe that superstions has it's roots in a flawed understanding of the world. For example, the Salem Witch Trials (while in origin were probably about politics and personal vendettas) were perpetuated because people were afraid of satan and witchcraft. But there are no witches, and Wiccans don't count in this example. Therefore many people were tortured and killed due to their ignorance and misunderstanding of the world.

And it only leads to ignorance if in fact their beliefs are wrong. Got any evidence to suppose their beliefs are incorrect?

I do. Uri Geller's tricks have never been anything that can't be duplicated by sleight of hand (bending spoons while people are distracted), cold reading, the usual bag of tricks that these people use to con others. Yasha Katz at one time revealed that he helped Geller to intentionally decieve people. He has since recanted, but his statements are still out there. Geller's reluctance to take the JREF, or indeed ANY scientific test are evidence of being evasive of having his powers evaluated in any way where he can't decieve the testers.

I would say that Uri Geller has none of the psychic powers he claims to have. I can't prove that to absolute certainty, just as I can't prove ANYTHING to absolute certainty, but I think the evidence is with me on this.

Jeff Corey

14th September 2003, 03:45 PM

Mystery Science Theatre 3003.
Dr. Interesting, "Hold on there, the immaterial is becoming material.
Whatever could be happening in the Overmind in the Seventh Dimension?"
Crow, "Could be a brainfart. Or a senior moment."
Dr. Interesting, "These events are beyond the ken of the Human mind."
Crow, "Yours, maybe."

Iamme

14th September 2003, 04:00 PM

Something whimsical...that's all: Peter (Graves)...(Greg) Morris. [From Mission Impossible]. Who happens to be discusing (Uri) Geller. Was it Bruce? Geller, being the producer of....Mission Impossible. This is too weird. This is paranormal!!!!! Is this just a coincidence that the thread starter and subject contains...Peter, Morris, and Geller?:confused:

Iamme

14th September 2003, 04:12 PM

To Jeff Crorey:D Hi! Perhaps Peter is refering to general discussion on this board, from present and past. Not just what is in his (Peter's) thread. There have been various past threads about Geller, and past threads where people have accused James Randi of lying. By saying that Randi is/was lying about (whoever) does not necessarily mean that Geller is on the up and up. That is all Peter is implying.

Interesting Ian

14th September 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I don't see how. What has people believing in macro-psychokinesis have to do with superstition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I believe that superstions has it's roots in a flawed understanding of the world. For example, the Salem Witch Trials (while in origin were probably about politics and personal vendettas) were perpetuated because people were afraid of satan and witchcraft. But there are no witches, and Wiccans don't count in this example. Therefore many people were tortured and killed due to their ignorance and misunderstanding of the world.

I am unable to understand how any of this remotely addresses my question.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it only leads to ignorance if in fact their beliefs are wrong. Got any evidence to suppose their beliefs are incorrect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do. Uri Geller's tricks have never been anything that can't be duplicated by sleight of hand (bending spoons while people are distracted), cold reading, the usual bag of tricks that these people use to con others. Yasha Katz at one time revealed that he helped Geller to intentionally decieve people. He has since recanted, but his statements are still out there. Geller's reluctance to take the JREF, or indeed ANY scientific test are evidence of being evasive of having his powers evaluated in any way where he can't decieve the testers.

I would say that Uri Geller has none of the psychic powers he claims to have. I can't prove that to absolute certainty, just as I can't prove ANYTHING to absolute certainty, but I think the evidence is with me on this.

All wholly irrelevant.

Jeff Corey

14th September 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
To Jeff Crorey:D Hi! Perhaps Peter is refering to general discussion on this board, from present and past. Not just what is in his (Peter's) thread. There have been various past threads about Geller, and past threads where people have accused James Randi of lying. By saying that Randi is/was lying about (whoever) does not necessarily mean that Geller is on the up and up. That is all Peter is implying.
Buzz!
Wrong.
Read what he said twice and I quoted once. This being has said Mr. Randi is a liar. I demand that it provide proof.
And Shirley, you know my last name is Corey.

Peter Morris

14th September 2003, 05:38 PM

To Jeff Crorey Hi! Perhaps Peter is refering to general discussion on this board, from present and past. Not just what is in his (Peter's) thread. There have been various past threads about Geller, and past threads where people have accused James Randi of lying. By saying that Randi is/was lying about (whoever) does not necessarily mean that Geller is on the up and up. That is all Peter is implying.

Thank you, that's exactly what I mean.

To Jeff: I've spoken about my doubts about James Randi in other threads, and I don't really want to get into it here very much.

Just one example : http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/abra.htm

Randi said <<[Geller] is intending to enter the 'psychic healing' field 'soon' and when he starts into that racket, he can kill people. He is well on his way to becoming a religious figure, and he is ruthless in his methods to do so. >>

I am asking for information in this thread whether there is any basis to Randi's claim.

Has Geller ever promised to use his psychic powers to heal, in a life-threatening manner as Randi claims?

Has Geller ever attempted to become a religious figure as Randi claims?

I'm asking for information here. Based on information posted so far, I have seen no indication that Geller has done any such thing. He is certainlty a publicity seeker, who claimed to have helped a few people get better after the fact. That's a different matter, far less serious IMHO. I've not seen any evidence that its life-threatening.

I see Randi as frequently prone to these wild accusations. If he just said Geller uses conjuring tricks, then fair enough, I agree with that. If he accuses Geller of trying to start a religion around himself, I want to see evidence of that claim, or I will call Randi a liar, and in his own way, every bit as bad as Geller is.

This is why I want to know what Geller does that's so bad. I really don't want to get into a detailed discussion of Randi's honesty in this particular thread. Lets keep it on topic, and stick to Geller, please.

Ratman_tf

14th September 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I am unable to understand how any of this remotely addresses my question.

All wholly irrelevant.

I'm sorry Ian. I can't explain it better than that. *Shrugs*

Iamme

14th September 2003, 06:20 PM

But Jeff---Just don't call me Shirley!

You mean.....because that extra "r" that wound up in your last name? Gee...I wonder how THAT happened?!:D

Chupacabras

14th September 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So what about the lies that "skeptics" continually come out with?
Thanks Ed for your previous response. Totally agree. In the end, seems like we agree that UG is still a liar?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Complete stupidity almost beyond belief

I hope you are ranting in general, and not calling me stupid, or you wouldn't ever get an "appreciation thread" from me! :p

If you have specific problems with "skeptics", you may open other threads to expose them, instead of derailing (as usual) this one.

Gee, I edited this one big time !!!

athon

14th September 2003, 11:20 PM

Wow, go to work for a day, and look what happens.

In my experience, it's almost ludicrous to try to convince somebody who cannot grasp the concept that their senses and their internal sense of perception are 'subjective' and hence cannot and should not be used to interpret an objective reality. If we could, I hardly think we would have religious wars, bigots or Pauline Hanson.

Our senses interpret a small part of the information that is conveyed through natural phenomena. Worse still, our interpretation of that information relies on a system that is far from foolproof. Our intelligence works well for what is required of it - it keeps us safe in a changing world and has allowed us to manipulate our environment in unprecedented ways. But it is far from adequate when taking in limited data and asking it to make the big picture. It is a pattern making system, which is simple but full of problems when concerning limited information (i.e., our senses).

How do we get around this? One, we get as much data as possible. Two, we don't rely on our senses or our own system of logic to interpret it - we create a methodology that goes beyond our ability to speculate. Three, we admit our modelling is wrong when contradicting data comes up and we modify our global knowledge pool.

Together, these three things are science. And a good thing we slowly learned this, otherwise we'd still be drawing maps with the words 'Here be Dragons' on the edges, and thinking the world is flat.

Athon

De_Bunk

15th September 2003, 06:44 AM

Pete'y...you ol' spunker...

Im sorry if i took a while to reply...

Ive been playing with the "kooks" on another board...

So..you come on this board pretending to be a skeptic...then, from your ranting posts...make it quite clear your obvious belief in Geller...

I will state whatever i like about Geller the liar / cheat / fraud / and total magician that he is....

I do not supply any proof to people who believe in Geller...ever...

They want proof...they go find where its posted...

I dont assist "Geller" lovers...

Get that right...

What a complete, gullible tosser you really...

DB

( bending spoons...making watches restart...do you really know how ridiculous that sounds...they say "There is one delusional f***wit born every minute..." and im afraid that was your minute...dickhead..)

Ladewig

15th September 2003, 08:32 AM

Randi said <<[Geller] is intending to enter the 'psychic healing' field 'soon' and when he starts into that racket, he can kill people. He is well on his way to becoming a religious figure, and he is ruthless in his methods to do so. >>

I am asking for information in this thread whether there is any basis to Randi's claim.

Has Geller ever promised to use his psychic powers to heal, in a life-threatening manner as Randi claims?

Has Geller ever attempted to become a religious figure as Randi claims?

I'm asking for information here. Based on information posted so far, I have seen no indication that Geller has done any such thing. He is certainlty a publicity seeker, who claimed to have helped a few people get better after the fact. That's a different matter, far less serious IMHO. I've not seen any evidence that its life-threatening.

I'm just throwing out one interpretation here - it may not be the one Randi had in mind.

Psychic healing is a dangerous racket because some patients put so much faith in psychic power in general or the psychic powers of their gurus that they ignore conventional medical treatments. There are many potentially fatal illnesses for which remedies are available if the treatment is started early enough. Postponing these treatments while one tries psychic healing can therefore be described as life-threatening.

As for the "religious figure" thing. It is my opinion that asking the Pope to bless a book co-authored by a rabbi counts as moving towards being a religious figure. Not that there is anything wrong with being a religious figure. I think of all the things Mr. Geller has been called, "religious figure" is probably one of the mildest.

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

The original question was "what harm does he do?" I think calling Kirilian photography "one of the world's greatest mysteries" does not help society and its understanding of how things work. Especially after claiming to have worked with the CIA and the FBI.

De_Bunk

15th September 2003, 09:05 AM

Ladewig...

An interest in your posts, i have...

( and why the f*** am i posting like Yoda...???)

I dunno...and i cant be a**ed backspacing....

DB

Yahzi

15th September 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by plindboe
He is deceitful and cons people, and I dislike him for that, but since it's people that love to be conned into believing
Then I assume you don't have a problem with people selling heroin to addicts. After all, they love to be addicted. So why should I sell them heroin for whatever price they'll pay?

Capatilism does not equate to filtering the population for the one victim that happens to be currently susceptible to your con.

hgc

15th September 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...

I could go on and on. Lots of harmful lies there. I find "skeptics" disgusting and despicable. They are holding back possible knowledge of what we ultimately are and the ultimate nature of the world that we inhabit.

... Who's holding back "possible knowledge ... ?" Please be specific. It would seem to me that it's the TK investigators and the others that think such things worth looking into that have that knowledge, and they're certainly not holding back, are they?

I'm now going to push the 'Submit Reply' button with my TK power. I truly believe... I truly believe ... oh damn! Back to the mouse.

trotsky

15th September 2003, 02:26 PM

Ian why do you insist on making utter blx statements when in some areas you seem to be quite normal. I can't fathom it, i've read other threads and have to presume you are trolling for fun.

"telekenisis has been proved" ???
yeah right, i remember reading my science book at uni ...man moves something with mind blah blah ....re-write history....stop , shuuut uuup and

back to the smog lands with you!

scribble

15th September 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by athon
[B]

Simple. In relation to my last post, Uri Geller supports false reasoning for the tricks he offers. Blaine does not. Hence Geller is contributing to a society where false foundations are created.

Weren't we all up-in-arms here not too long ago because Blaine came out with a statement to the press supporting Uri's claim that he's the Real Deal? Someone here must have a better memory than I do...

Interesting Ian

15th September 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by trotsky
Ian why do you insist on making utter blx statements when in some areas you seem to be quite normal. I can't fathom it, i've read other threads and have to presume you are trolling for fun.

Just as a matter of curiosity, in what areas in your opinion do I seem "normal"?

CFLarsen

15th September 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just as a matter of curiosity, in what areas in your opinion do I seem "normal"?

Area 51.

NoZed Avenger

15th September 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi said <<[b][Geller] is intending to enter the 'psychic healing' field 'soon' and when he starts into that racket, he can kill people. He is well on his way to becoming a religious figure, and he is ruthless in his methods to do so. >>

I am asking for information in this thread whether there is any basis to Randi's claim.

Has Geller ever promised to use his psychic powers to heal, in a life-threatening manner as Randi claims?

Previous threads on this board have dealt with several stories - mostly from the British press - talking about Geller and healing. He also, of course, offered his famous Orange Spot (tm) in his crystal psychic kit (or whatever it was called) talking about magic healing. Whether it is at the level of life-threatening now, claims of psychic healing always carry with it risks and the potential for such problems.

Has Geller ever attempted to become a religious figure as Randi claims?

Given his early claims to be talking with/for space aliens shortly after he burst on the public scene, I'd say that interpretation is not too far off. Also, a claim of genuine powers may set himself up as a religious leader/icon without necessarily intentionally "attempting to become" such a figure.

I see Randi as frequently prone to these wild accusations.

Since you're asking for specifics, I assume you can catalogue what you mean by "frequently prone" and supply examples beyond a few over a thirty year stretch.

With regard to "what harm does it do," there are perhaps half a dozen threads talking about this subject already on the message board from the past year or so. Some deal with specific cases, most are just a general discussion. There is some wheat in amongst the chaff.

Personally, I see fraud -- taking money from people under false pretences (thorugh the use of willful deceit) -- as "bad." If you state that Geller is merely doing tricks, but claiming to be real (as you seem to say), then he is committing fraud, the same as any snake-oil salesman.

Is there a distinction that should protect one particular type of fraud from scorn?

N/A

Peter Morris

15th September 2003, 04:42 PM

Peter Morris

15th September 2003, 05:19 PM

Since you're asking for specifics, I assume you can catalogue what you mean by "frequently prone" and supply examples beyond a few over a thirty year stretch.

Jusy out of interest, how many do you want? How many examples of inaccurate statements, hypocricy, distorted test results, scientific misstatements, meaningless tests, baseless accusations, blatant plagarism and fictional conversations with non-existant people wouild it take?

Personally, I see fraud -- taking money from people under false pretences (thorugh the use of willful deceit) -- as "bad." If you state that Geller is merely doing tricks, but claiming to be real (as you seem to say), then he is committing fraud, the same as any snake-oil salesman.

Is there a distinction that should protect one particular type of fraud from scorn?

I'll mention the comparison to David Blane, again. Randi says He allows people to theorize and wonder about his stunts ... Let me make this clear: none of these are mysteries to the conjuring profession. We know how they're done... Randi's comments indicate that his current stunt is actually a conjuring trick, but he is passing it off as a genuine feat of endurance and starvation.

I did a little conjuring myself in my teenage years. I can point to various circus performers who are apparently performing acts of great skill, requiring years of dedicated training and practice- in actual fact they are performing simple conjuring tricks that anyone could learn in 5 minutes.

Would you say that they are committing fraud?

De_Bunk

15th September 2003, 06:38 PM

Peter Morris (Kook)

Seeing as you know so much about Feng shui...

Maybe you could enlighten us as to its benefits..

After all, you believe Geller can bend spoons and jump to his defence...

You seem a gullible know-nothing....

So how many Feng Shui functions you attended lately...

Its obvious you believe in it...because you have shown that you pretend that you dont...then you come its defence...as with Geller...

Skeptic....are you...???

Yeh..

Right...

"Idiot Newbie"..that about all you are...just out to troll the skeptic boards...

Tosser..

DB

NoZed Avenger

15th September 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Jusy out of interest, how many do you want? How many examples of inaccurate statements, hypocricy, distorted test results, scientific misstatements, meaningless tests, baseless accusations, blatant plagarism and fictional conversations with non-existant people wouild it take?

I haven't been impressed with your assertions to date. And how did we get this list of sins from "frequently prone" to making "these wild accusations"? Now a meaningless test (unidentified) hypocrisy (ditto) and misstatements have been added to our category?

How many wild accusations like the ones identified can you show? You said he was prone to making them, I'd like to see the basis for that statement.

I did a little conjuring myself in my teenage years. I can point to various circus performers who are apparently performing acts of great skill, requiring years of dedicated training and practice- in actual fact they are performing simple conjuring tricks that anyone could learn in 5 minutes.

Would you say that they are committing fraud?

If they say they have mystic powers and take money on that basis, then yes. If they are putting on a show and disclaim such powers, then no.

Now that I have answered your question, lets have a go at mine:
NA: "Personally, I see fraud -- taking money from people under false pretences (thorugh the use of willful deceit) -- as "bad." If you state that Geller is merely doing tricks, but claiming to be real (as you seem to say), then he is committing fraud, the same as any snake-oil salesman.

Is there a distinction that should protect one particular type of fraud from scorn?

N/A

Also, as I indicated, there are a number of earlier threads on this subject (as well as Blaine), some of which I have already given an opinion on.

Interesting Ian

15th September 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
[B]Peter Morris (Kook)

Seeing as you know so much about Feng shui...

Maybe you could enlighten us as to its benefits..

After all, you believe Geller can bend spoons and jump to his defence...

De_Bunk,

No-one on this thread has claimed that they believe that Gellar has paranormal powers. Indeed everyone has maintained that they believe he doesn't. Why should people lie?

plindboe

16th September 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Then I assume you don't have a problem with people selling heroin to addicts. After all, they love to be addicted. So why should I sell them heroin for whatever price they'll pay?

Capatilism does not equate to filtering the population for the one victim that happens to be currently susceptible to your con.
I don't consider Geller's writings harmful in any way compared to the harm heroin can do, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. If you want to convince me that he is deadly, I'm listening. Has he for instance done any of the things that the mission impossible guy(aka Peter Morris) ask about in the beginning of this thread?

Peter Morris

19th September 2003, 12:06 PM

To NoZed Avenger:

I haven't been impressed with your assertions to date. Funnily enough, I haven't been impressed withthe Randi fans' responses either.
And how did we get this list of sins from "frequently prone" to making "these wild accusations"? Now a meaningless test (unidentified) hypocrisy (ditto) and misstatements have been added to our category?

How many wild accusations like the ones identified can you show? You said he was prone to making them, I'd like to see the basis for that statement.

Quite a few,actually.

Lets start with his allegations that Geller puts lives in danger and has tried to start a religion around himself. I'm still waiting for evidence of those claims.
http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/abra.htm

Now, consider Randi's remarks in the same letter "do not assume that Geller uses standard conjuring methods to accomplish his chicanery. I have been able to solve his methods only by careful study of videotapes...He does everything with great care, meticulous misdirection and flawless instinct" Contrast that to Randi's later attack on those poor dumb scientists with their PhDs, saying they were fooled by tricks that used to be printed on cereal boxes. This is a man who will say anything to discredit people he disagrees with, and doesn't care if the things he says are accurate or true.

And lets not forget Randi's wild and baseless accusation that Geller and Byrd were involved in an attempt to blackmail Randi.

Then there's Randi's claim that Geller has a criminal record in Israel for fraud connected with his psychic claims.

And here you can find an account of Randi's attack on the "Metronics Corporation of Minneapolis" - quite extraordinary http://www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge14.htm

Then, there's quite a few in his Swift columns, where he has attacked someone, then a few weeks later has apologised and admitted he was wrong, either because Randi didn't bother checking the facts, or because the person was actually making a joke that went right over Randi's head.

See, for example, Randi's attack on David Copperfield http://www.randi.org/jr/102601.html
and http://www.randi.org/jr/111601.html and http://www.randi.org/jr/110201.html and Randi's eventual apology http://www.randi.org/jr/113001.html

And then there's Randi's claim that all martial arts experts are frauds : http://www.randi.org/jr/08-10-01.html and a better informed person corrects his blunder : http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html

Then in http://www.randi.org/jr/053102.html Randi examines a cospiracy-theory website, and declares "I'm sorry to say that I believe they are serious.... " then later had to admit that he had missed the joke. http://www.randi.org/jr/060702.html

More recently, he attacked Luhnd university http://www.randi.org/jr/091203.html see a forum response, suggesting that he may not have been quite accurate or fair in his comments: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870100799#post1870100799 Randi hasn't admitted error - yet. Want to bet how long it will be before he does so?

I could go on in a similar vein, but would it do any good? Would twenty, or a hundred such examples change your opinion of the man one iota? I doubt it. My experience of the Randi fans shows they are good at rationalising his failures.

If they say they have mystic powers and take money on that basis, then yes. If they are putting on a show and disclaim such powers, then no.

Now that I have answered your question, lets have a go at mine:
NA: "Personally, I see fraud -- taking money from people under false pretences (thorugh the use of willful deceit) -- as "bad." If you state that Geller is merely doing tricks, but claiming to be real (as you seem to say), then he is committing fraud, the same as any snake-oil salesman.
Is there a distinction that should protect one particular type of fraud from scorn?
Actually, you seem to be the one making the distinction of a particular type of fraud. You say its only bad if they claim to use mystic powers, but other types of deception in a show don't worry you.

Lets take an example. A 'daredevil' stuntman promises to ride over Niagra falls in a barrel, the audience pay for tickets to see this stunt. Actually, its a magic trick. The performer enters the barrel, then slips out through the trap door in the bottom. He makes his way secretly to the base of the falls, as his assistants put the barrel in the water. Then the audience oooh and aaaah as the barrel goes over the falls (he's not in it). When the barrel is picked up at the base of the falls, he secretly re-enters through the trap-door, before stepping out and saying taa-daaa. (That's a fictional example that I can tell without spoiling anyone's trick, but there are real performers doing similar things- apparently dangerous stunts that are really simple magic tricks.)

Now, tell me, NZ, is our friend the daredevil a fraud that needs to be exposed, or just a performer putting on a show? Since he isn't claiming mystic powers I suppose you find it acceptable, and could you please explain the distinction.

ISTM that Geller is doing pretty much the same thing.

Blondin

19th September 2003, 03:49 PM

PM you're fulla crap.

The links you posted indicate places where Randi made a mistake and admitted he was wrong and apologized. He doesn't make baseless accusations, he simply states the facts as he sees them based on the information available. Occasionally he makes a mistake. From everything I've seen he has never hesitated to admit when he's wrong.

What's all this stuff about him attacking Geller, Edwards, etc? I'm not aware of Randi launching any lawsuits against any paranormal, psychic or pseudoscientific quacks. All he does is challenge them to prove that they can do what they claim they can do in a controlled environment without a possibility of cheating or resorting to conjuring tricks.

I understand that you are not saying that you believe their mumbo-jumbo; you are just saying "where's the harm?" That's what I call the "PT Barnum" school of thought: "If people are dumb enough to pay to see a latex dummy encased in ice where's the harm?" Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to bilk yokels who don't know any better? Fraud is fraud. Blaming fraud victim's for being ignorant is like blaming rape victims for being defenseless.

If Uri Geller promoted himself as a magician, talented illusionist, or whatever, I suspect he might have earned a great deal of respect from Randi and his fellow magicians over the years. But that's not what he does. He sets himself apart from the entertainment industry. He and Edwards and Browne and Van Praggh and Keen and others like them promote fuzzy thinking and discourage genuine critical analysis.

They promote the kind of dead-end logic that says "because X number of people believe this it must be true" and encourage acceptance of things that defy critical examination. They promote superstition and woo-woo ********. I don't think I could begin to encapsulate, in one message post, just how dangerous that is; not nearly as eloquently as Carl Sagan did in his book "The Daemon-Haunted World". If you haven't read it I highly recommend it.

In the short-term they are crooks who take money under false pretenses. In the long term the danger they pose is not so much in the clap-trap they peddle as in their "you can't prove otherwise therefore I must be telling the truth" belief system.

I'm just damn glad there people around like James Randi and JREF to challenge the ridiculous claims of the fraudsters and provide alternate explanations.

Peter Morris

19th September 2003, 04:52 PM

SteveGrenard

19th September 2003, 05:03 PM

I have stated this above and its has been overlooked. Randi's motive for attacking Geller more than any other single individual (count up the number of times he mentions Geller in a negative voice in anything he writes or says including his commentary Swift etc) is because Geller responded to his early criticisms by SUING him, not the other way round. So yes, Randi never sued him (maybe in a counter suit--there were so many one can't keep track) but it is up close and personal between Randi and Geller, the original Hatfield-McCoy-like family feud and always will be until they are both gone.

You always have to keep this in mind when deciding the basis for this. Since Geller cost Randi and CSICOP a small fortune in legal fees, time and aggravation but got little else in return for his lawsuits, Geller will probably never ever sue Randi again so this makes it open season on him. I think Geller ultimately won, he got one dollar plus legal costs. Or maybe not even the legal costs on his side. But the lawyers made out like bandits on both sides.

kookbreaker

19th September 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have stated this above and its has been overlooked. Randi's motive for attacking Geller more than any other single individual (count up the number of times he mentions Geller in a negative voice in anything he writes or says including his commentary Swift etc) is because Geller responded to his early criticisms by SUING him, not the other way round. So yes, Randi never sued him (maybe in a counter suit--there were so many one can't keep track) but it is up close and personal between Randi and Geller, the original Hatfield-McCoy-like family feud and always will be until they are both gone.

I would disagree with this statement. Randi wrote and entire book debunkning Geller, and later FLim-Flam devoted a chapter or two documenting the further misadventures. Geller's lawsuits came much later (late 80's and early 90's). There is a large gap between those books and the lawsuits.

You always have to keep this in mind when deciding the basis for this. Since Geller cost Randi and CSICOP a small fortune in legal fees, time and aggravation but got little else in return for his lawsuits, Geller will probably never ever sue Randi again so this makes it open season on him. I think Geller ultimately won, he got one dollar plus legal costs. Or maybe not even the legal costs on his side. But the lawyers made out like bandits on both sides. [/B]

Geller did not recieve anything. CSICOP got costs, as did other folks Geller sued. (Victor Stenger and Prometheus Books).

kookbreaker

19th September 2003, 07:18 PM

I just got back from Chicago and I'm a bit tired, but I do want to make one point regarding the religion angle. I wish I could say it was a short point, but I'd be lying.

Geller never "established" a religion, and I will be the first to admit that the claim of setting oneself as a religious figure is subjective to say the least. But compare the antics of Uri Geller to those of L. Ron Hubbard, and you'll see similarities.. I should point out that Hubbard never established Scientology as a religion until the mid-80's when it became economicly convenient to do so. When you look at the events of Geller's early years there are a few uncomfortable statements Geller made.

For example, Geller stated in more than one interview that he was "not the Messiah". OK, fine, you might think, there's an outright denial! But the problem is, the interviewer never brought up the Messian issue with Geller in the first place. So, why did he mention it at all?

Geller did hint at being able to psychic heal, and said he was successful. But he also claimed to be 'scared' about doing it. In other words, I can do it, but don't ask me to. Take it on faith brother.

Geller mentions a few times that he was born on December 20th. Several times he points out that this is "real birthdate of Christ". He said it, I didn't.

Geller was likely heading down a path past his spoon bending days to something a bit more heavy and was setting himself up to do so. This is of course, completely subjective and one can quibble, but the early days of Scientology and Rev. Jim Jones had similar elements of tricks passed off as miracles. Scientology covered it with a mishmash of psuedoscience before calling it a religon, Jones had Christianity stapled over his cult of Jones.

Geller also had others making messianic claims for him. Kept Uri clean but still gave any would-be followers a taste of the religion.

So why did nothing come further? ONe could say that Randi's efforts stemed to tide of potential Geller worship. Another likely candidate was the fact that Geller didn't have the mental organizational skills to play a religious figure. AFter all he's claimed to recieve his powers from everything from God, to errant sewing machines, to UFO's or the planet Huva. These revlations often seemed to follow the fickle follies of the newage crew.

Today, Geller is just plain old self-absorbed. As the editor of the Fortean Times pointed out when discussing the man who would be Messiah: "Why is the Messiah bandying about in England trying to figure out new ways to make money?"

(last comment paraphrased as I lost the article it was in.)

Time for bed.

SteveGrenard

19th September 2003, 07:54 PM

Kookbreaker ... I clearly pointed out Geller did not win anything. Insofar as costs are cncerned, I forward herewith an account by James Randi which mentions the expense Geller's litigation put him and CSICOP through. About a year or two ago, CSICOP was still appealing for donations to close a fifty thousand dollar gap in their legal defense costs. Just because a court awards such costs my dear friend doesn't mean they are paid! Stenger, as you will also note below, was also a defendent named by Geller who was put through great financial expense by his actions as well. Writing books about it afterward are small consolation to receive. You also miss the point. Mr. Morris wonders why Randi continues his diatribe against Geller on a regular basis. I still maintain that, given the evidence below, in Randi's own hand, it is not hard to understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from: James Randi --- Wizard
Sat, 25 Feb 1995 19:59:00 -0500

"On June 7th, 1989, I was served with the papers that began the first of a series of lawsuits brought by "psychic" Uri Geller and one of his few remaining acolytes. Now, five years and nine months later, I can tell you that all the actions are finished with. The plaintiffs have either lost their cases, have won nothing, have had their cases summarily dismissed, or have withdrawn them. Prometheus Books, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, writer Victor Stenger, Michael Hutchinson and others -- all also defendants in these and other, separate cases brought by Geller and his chum, have also been released from those cases. We have experienced a total victory over those who would silence us and frighten us into submission by threats of litigation.

"A vigorous appeal was made by Geller to the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, when a huge sanction was awarded against him because of the frivolous nature of his lawsuits. In its written decision turning down Geller's appeal, citing "Geller's litigious history," the Court said that he . . . is a self-proclaimed psychic . . . [who] has built a career and reputation on attempted demonstrations of these psychic "skills" . . . Among Geller's critics is James Randi, an accomplished magician, author and lecturer,
better known as "The Amazing Randi." . . . Since Geller's
rise to prominence in the early 1970's, Randi has set about
exposing various Geller feats as the fraudulent tricks of a
confidence man.

"Some definitions, from Webster's New World Dictionary:

"self-proclaimed: so proclaimed or announced by oneself

"fraudulent: 1. acting with fraud;deceitful 2. based on
or characterized by fraud 3. done or obtained by fraud

"confidence man: a swindler who tries to gain the confidence
of his victim in order to defraud him

"As if I needed to tell you, the Geller camp is now proclaiming to the world that he has let all us poor mortals off the hook, and has dropped all the legal actions in order to get on with more important things in his life. If Geller will look, he'll see that the "hook" is in HIS mouth, not mine. Like Saddam Hussein, he is looking at the "Mother of Defeats" as the "Mother of Victories." Look closer, Uri.

"True, it was very costly for me to defend myself in these matters; that's the unfair penalty that U.S. law fails to remedy, while other civilized countries require that the loser in a civil action must pay the costs of both sides. But I had -- and still have -- an enormous advantage that Geller does not have. I have a multitude of good friends out there who answered my call for assistance, and in responding as they did, made it possible for me to come out on top. The good guys won.

"My next book, due out in May (don't depend on it, publishers being what they are) will make an attempt to adequately thank those who played the most up- front parts in the drama. The book is "An Encyclopedia of the Claims, Hoaxes and Frauds of the Occult and Supernatural." (In the U.K. edition, it's simply "The Supernatural, A to Z.") All our favorite actors are in there, and the fur will begin flying as soon as it hits the stands, as usual. Geller has already issued the expected tiresome warnings about his sensitivity to anything but undiluted adulation, so the playlet continues....

"There were times when I was depressed over the situation, but friends reached out to assure me of support. I never, for a moment, entertained the notion that I might lose any of these cases. Yes, it could have gone badly, but by sticking with the "don't give him a nickel" stance, I managed to get
through it in good shape.

"It will be a while before I've recovered financially, but things in that respect are looking up. The James Randi Fund continues in existence until the final legal costs are done away with, and that's a burden I may hope to see lifted within a year or two. Stiff upper lip, and all that, y'know.

"Thanks, friends. I couldn't have done it without you. This was only one battle, and there are other dragons out there to slay. Once more unto the breach.....

"James Randi.

Blondin

19th September 2003, 08:24 PM

PM, you've taken Randi's statement (from a letter in a magicians trade rag in Feb, 1974) that he was concerned that Geller was "intending to enter the 'psychic healing' field 'soon' and when he starts into that racket, he can kill people. He is well on his way to becoming a religious figure, and he is ruthless in his methods to do so" and turned it into "allegations that Geller puts lives in danger and has tried to start a religion around himself".

Randi was expressing his desire to prevent Geller from getting into the psychic healing game. He didn't just pick on Geller. He was very busy debunking faith healers and "psychic surgeons" in those days (I am old enough to remember).

Today, as it turns out Geller doesn't claim to be a faith healer:
Dear friends I just want you to know and understand that I'm NOT a miracle worker or a healer. I believe that spontaneous healings occur because of your own Mindpower and I am only acting as a trigger, a catalyst, an enabler, and of course by no way am I saying to anyone to abandon conventional medicine.
Pretty slick, eh. Geller takes credit but makes it clear he is not a healer. Would he be so careful to put such disclaimers in his blurb if not for Randis attention? Who knows.

Bottom line? The message I get from Randi and JREF is "Question things that don't seem right, demand proof." I think they're doing good work.

The message I get from looking at Geller's website is "buy my crap, don't listen to non-believers, buy my crap, worship me, buy my crap, I am the greatest, buy my crap..."

You obviously don't like Mr Randi. I doubt you ever will. Who cares?

Peter Morris

20th September 2003, 12:33 AM

SteveGrenard, you appear a little confused as to the outcome of that court case, hardly surprising since Randi has twisted the facts somewhat.

Briefly- Geller sued Randi and Psicop. Psicop argued that they were not responsible for Randi's words, and should be dropped from the action. The court agreed, and awarded costs to Psicop.

This is the point that confuses some people, they don't understand that the action against Randi continued. Randi did not receive one cent of the money Geller was forced to pay Psicop. Psicop abandoned Randi to fend for himself, and Randi was PO'd.

Randi and Geller settled out of court in a confidential settlement, the details of which are ... well, confidential.

Randi did not 'win' I think you could well say they both lost.

Blondin: You obviously don't like Mr Randi. I doubt you ever will. Who cares? obviously you do.

CFLarsen

20th September 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Psicop abandoned Randi to fend for himself

First, it's "CSICOP", not "Psicop". Your "psironic" slur will get you nowhere.

Second, it is not correct. CSICOP and Randi agreed that, in order to avoid legal costs from frivolous lawsuits such as Geller's, CSICOP could be destroyed financially. Not from the lawsuits themselves, but from the costs of lawyers - not to speak of time, of course. Randi then got people to back him up with money, and founded the JREF.

Peter Morris

20th September 2003, 02:28 AM

First, it's "CSICOP", not "Psicop". My bad. No irony intended.

CFLarsen

20th September 2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
My bad. No irony intended.
I notice that you do not try to back up your claim that CSICOP "abandoned Randi to fend for himself".

SteveGrenard

20th September 2003, 05:01 AM

Peter Morris:

Briefly- Geller sued Randi and Psicop. Psicop argued that they were not responsible for Randi's words, and should be dropped from the action. The court agreed, and awarded costs to Psicop.

Reply:

First of all it's CSICOP not Psicop. Secondly, I did not hallucinate the appeal I received from that organization for its legal defense fund to pay a $50K shortfall in legal espenses related to this.
Thirdly, as I said above and which you missed, even if a court did award costs to CSICOP to be paid by Geller, it is my understanding that after this happened Geller folded his tent,
went back to England and basically didn't pay any costs to CSICOP. In short he did not pay or if he did pay anything , it was not the full cost or not enough. I have read that he probably shielded his assets in advance of this as well. Somebody had to pay though. CSICOP was and is paying its lawyers all along and even a U.S. court order could not get Geller to reimburse those costs. Now we'll never know the truth of any private settlements between Randi and Geller but I believe Randi when he says he was financially near ruined by Geller. Randi and CSICOP parted ways at this point because it was felt it was Randi and not CSICOP which was Geller's target.

Also: whatever this secret agreement between Randi and Geller contained, it obviously did not contain any promise from Randi not to criticize or attack him again. Pretty piss poor agreement I would say from Geller's perspective.

Back to the original premise: is it any wonder Randi is pissed off at Geller and will hammer him any chance he gets?

Like I said before, the only winners were the lawyers.

kookbreaker

20th September 2003, 08:30 AM

For the record, Geller did apparently pay Victor Stenger:

Linky (http://www.csicop.org/articles/uri_dis.html)

On July 5 Geller noted an appeal from this decision. On August 17, however, he dismissed his appeal, terminated the litigation, and paid Prometheus and Stenger $20,272.89, followed by another check for $299.53 in interest.

I understand that some of the award to CSICOP was somewhat reduced(actually, they may have just dropped the demand for inerest) so Geller in turn would drop the lien for payment over the 'insult" money from Japan. This happened when Randi needed to travel to Japan but refused to pay Geller a red cent. CSICOP, which obviosuly still had not been paid,used its award for a compromise. This would indicate that CSICOP didn't eject Randi as some have stated.

Peter Morris

20th September 2003, 08:51 AM

I notice that you do not try to back up your claim that CSICOP "abandoned Randi to fend for himself".

I've discussed it recently in another thread, but you can see Randi's own comments here: http://www.holysmoke.org/randi/jr000.htm

"[CSICOP Chairman Paul] Kurtz cut me loose from the very beginning. He told the insurance company that I hadn't been working on behalf of CSICOP when the 'dreadful act' of telling the truth about Geller was actually uttered. And of course I was. That was part of my job."

and

"Randi was compelled to defend himself without CSICOP's
support"

and

"CSICOP did me a disservice by running that ad with my name attached to it. I got a lot of response from people, especially on e-mail, who thought they were contributing toward my defense as well when they sent checks to CSICOP. Not one cent that was ever given to CSICOP defended me except, I believe, in two cases where the check itself was made payable to CSICOP and Randi. Otherwise, it all went to CSICOP."

Next question?

CFLarsen

20th September 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Next question?

Have you confirmed this with Randi?

Peter Morris

20th September 2003, 10:08 AM

It comes from Randi Hotline, an email circular distributed by Randi to fans of Randi. If its not accurate, blame him.

Chupacabras

20th September 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Then, there's quite a few in his Swift columns, where he has attacked someone, then a few weeks later has apologised and admitted he was wrong,
And then you yourself said:
Originally posted by Peter Morris
We must be talking about different Randis.

The one I'm talking about rarely admits error,
And I say: CRAP

You started this thread asking "where's the harm? - then, you divert every answer to "but, what about Randi?". What that has to do with UG and all his achievements in world peace????

gnome

20th September 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Lets take an example. A 'daredevil' stuntman promises to ride over Niagra falls in a barrel, the audience pay for tickets to see this stunt. Actually, its a magic trick. The performer enters the barrel, then slips out through the trap door in the bottom. He makes his way secretly to the base of the falls, as his assistants put the barrel in the water. Then the audience oooh and aaaah as the barrel goes over the falls (he's not in it). When the barrel is picked up at the base of the falls, he secretly re-enters through the trap-door, before stepping out and saying taa-daaa. (That's a fictional example that I can tell without spoiling anyone's trick, but there are real performers doing similar things- apparently dangerous stunts that are really simple magic tricks.)

Now, tell me, NZ, is our friend the daredevil a fraud that needs to be exposed, or just a performer putting on a show? Since he isn't claiming mystic powers I suppose you find it acceptable, and could you please explain the distinction.

ISTM that Geller is doing pretty much the same thing.

The distinction of whether the performer claims to have mystic powers is at the core of the matter. When a stage magician deceives the audience to perform a trick, the result is entertainment. When someone uses the same tricks and then deceives the audience, claiming to have mystical powers, the result is ignorant superstitions reinforced in the audience--do you feel this is not harmful?

Peter Morris

20th September 2003, 08:40 PM

And the fake daredevil telling people its possible to survive going over Niaglls in a barrel, that's not potentially harmful?

Why do you make a distinction?

Either you can permit a little deception in aid of entertainment, or you can't, the distinction you are making does not make sense.

CFLarsen

20th September 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
It comes from Randi Hotline, an email circular distributed by Randi to fans of Randi. If its not accurate, blame him.

No confirmation, then.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And the fake daredevil telling people its possible to survive going over Niaglls in a barrel, that's not potentially harmful?

Is the daredevil (why would he be fake??) telling people that he is doing it because he has paranormal powers?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Either you can permit a little deception in aid of entertainment, or you can't, the distinction you are making does not make sense.

Geller is not just entertainment, he also claims he has paranormal powers. That's the distinction.

NoZed Avenger

20th September 2003, 10:49 PM

A lot of bumps while I have been away. I have trial next week out of town, but will print out the thread and try to have a substantive reply by the end of the week - not that anyone cares, particularly, but I haven't forgotten.

N/A

princhester

22nd September 2003, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And here you can find an account of Randi's attack on the "Metronics Corporation of Minneapolis" - quite extraordinary http://www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge14.htm

As I understand it, you would accept that Geller is a total fraud. But you believe his website. No doubt only when it is criticizing Randi. You'd take the word of satan himself, if he was criticizing Randi.

Then, there's quite a few in his Swift columns, where he has attacked someone, then a few weeks later has apologised and admitted he was wrong, either because Randi didn't bother checking the facts, or because the person was actually making a joke that went right over Randi's head.

See, for example, Randi's attack on David Copperfield http://www.randi.org/jr/102601.html
and http://www.randi.org/jr/111601.html and http://www.randi.org/jr/110201.html and Randi's eventual apology http://www.randi.org/jr/113001.html

In which Randi reads a news item which misquotes Copperfield, Randi, then admonishes Copperfield for what the news item reported Copperfield as saying, then Randi apologises profusely when it turns out the news item misquoted Copperfield. Note also that Copperfield told Randi that one of the reasons Copperfield was so upset was because Randi has a reputation for being honest.

Yep that sure supports your argument.

And then there's Randi's claim that all martial arts experts are frauds : http://www.randi.org/jr/08-10-01.html and a better informed person corrects his blunder : http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html

Actually Randi does not say that all martial arts experts are frauds at all. That is just a classic PM exaggeration. Something you do a remarkable amount for someone who holds Randi to the highest possible standards of probity. Randi just says that martial artists do demonstrations using easily breakable boards and bricks, that are specially bought. And the "better informed" person basically confirms what Randi says ie that the boards and bricks are rigged, but then goes on to say that it is still hard to break them. Not much of a blunder, and certainly nothing to the blunders that you commit in your postings all the time. You can't even get basic facts about what other posters have or have not said correct, even when all you have to do is a simple search.

You have no interest in accuracy except when it comes to Randi, and then suddenly you develop an requirement of accuracy that borders on the saintly.

In fact, the only people (besides yourself) who you do not minding lying are dowsers and other applicants for Randi's tests, who you believe lie when they sign to say they accept that the tests are fair, but you think this is acceptable.

Then in http://www.randi.org/jr/053102.html Randi examines a cospiracy-theory website, and declares "I'm sorry to say that I believe they are serious.... " then later had to admit that he had missed the joke. http://www.randi.org/jr/060702.html

So missing the joke is now lying? Or what?

More recently, he attacked Luhnd university http://www.randi.org/jr/091203.html see a forum response, suggesting that he may not have been quite accurate or fair in his comments: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870100799#post1870100799 Randi hasn't admitted error - yet. Want to bet how long it will be before he does so?

His source was a newspaper, and that newspaper got it wrong. The very source that you quote as correcting Randi says this.

So we have another case of Randi reading a report of something and you castigating him because the source had it wrong.

Compare this to your behaviour in your first ever Straight Dope thread, in which you repeated many of the common slanders about Randi, I (comparatively) gently suggested that you might want to check your sources, you then proudly stated that you were not relying upon secondary sources, you knew what you were saying from your own observations, then someone pointed out you had something wrong, at which point your previous comment that you were relying on your own observations went out the window: you now proceeded to blame your mistake on another poster saying they had lead you astray (which they hadn't, by the way)!

A shocking piece of lying, buckpassing and obnoxiousness for which you have never apologised, but which you have never denied.

If Randi behaved as you do, he would not have any credibility. He doesn't. You don't.

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 08:44 AM

I (comparatively) gently suggested that you might want to check your sources, you then proudly stated that you were not relying upon secondary sources, you knew what you were saying from your own observations, then someone pointed out you had something wrong, at which point your previous comment that you were relying on your own observations went out the window: you now proceeded to blame your mistake on another poster saying they had lead you astray (which they hadn't, by the way)!

A shocking piece of lying, buckpassing and obnoxiousness for which you have never apologised, but which you have never denied.

Oh, yeah, I remember that.

Some Randi fan made the comment "Randi says that underground rivers are fictional"

I showed evidence from geological websites that underground rivers are not fictional, but actually quite common within Karst.

Then Princhester attacked me, claiming that Randi had never said any such thing, and that I am lying for quoting him as such, and demanding that I apologise.

Pathetic, isn't he, folks

Darat

22nd September 2003, 08:58 AM

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 09:07 AM

As I understand it, you would accept that Geller is a total fraud. But you believe his website. No doubt only when it is criticizing Randi. You'd take the word of satan himself, if he was criticizing Randi.

As you would accept the word of Satan if he were praising Randi.

So you believe in Satan, do you? What a woo-woo.

In which Randi reads a news item which misquotes Copperfield, Randi, then admonishes Copperfield for what the news item reported Copperfield as saying, then Randi apologises profusely when it turns out the news item misquoted Copperfield. Note also that Copperfield told Randi that one of the reasons Copperfield was so upset was because Randi has a reputation for being honest.

Yep that sure supports your argument.

Yes, indeed. Randi printed a story he didn't bother to check and hurled a load of vitriol against Copperfield. He does this a lot. Copperfield isn't the first to discover how ill-deserved Randi's reputation for honesty is, he won't be the last.

The simple fact is that Randi does this to all the people he attacks. His fans seem not to care when he does it to Geller, but that doesn't make it any less dishonest.

Actually Randi does not say that all martial arts experts are frauds at all. That is just a classic PM exaggeration that is exactly what he says, that is another piece of Princhester illiteracy. And the "better informed" person basically confirms what Randi says ie that the boards and bricks are rigged, but then goes on to say that it is still hard to break them. No, he says that it is possible to fake boards to be easily broken and some displays use fake boards, but most martial arts experts use real boards and real bricks.

His source was a newspaper, and that newspaper got it wrong. The very source that you quote as correcting Randi says this.

Another case of Randi printing a story without bothering to check the facts, and spewing forth a load of ill-mannered abuse against an undeserving target. He does this a lot.

See, the thing is, Princhester, Randi just says any old thing to attack the people he disagrees with, he never cares whether its true, or accurate, just as long as it discredits them, he'll say it.

It's not enough for him to say that Uri Geller uses complex magic tricks which he invented himself, which would be true. Instead, Randi claimed that Geller uses simple magic tricks that came off cereal packets, which is a lie. You don't care about him making that sort of distortion, but I do. That's what makes me honest, and you a Randi fan.

Chupacabras

22nd September 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Another case of Randi printing a story without bothering to check the facts
<snip>
Instead, Randi claimed that Geller uses simple magic tricks that came off cereal packets, which is a lie.

Ok. Randi is a liar.

Now, where's the harm?

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 09:35 AM

Did you check to see if Randi had said what the "Randi fan" said he said?

Yes, indeed:http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm

Randi's exact words were "the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research."

He has made similar claims in other articles.

The Randi fan quoted this as saying underground rivers are fictional, and another Randi fan stated that there are no underground rivers.

Of course, after I posted proof that Underground rivers are real, Princhester desperately attempted backtracking, lying and weasling, denying that Randi had said that, claiming that Randi-fan's words 'Randi says underground rivers are fictional' mean something else, and 'underground rivers don't exist' means something else, and so on.

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 09:39 AM

Ok. Randi is a liar.

Now, where's the harm? the harm is that sensible people wouldn't believe what Uri Geller has to say, but ~Randi claioms to be a bastion of honesty and science, so sensible people might simply accept what he says.

kookbreaker

22nd September 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, indeed. Randi printed a story he didn't bother to check and hurled a load of vitriol against Copperfield. He does this a lot. Copperfield isn't the first to discover how ill-deserved Randi's reputation for honesty is, he won't be the last.

This story and the false Copperfgield quote were widely disseminated. There was quite a storm over it. Randi was not hte only one. In fact, had you been present on this board you would have seen some crossover between this board and a David Copperfield board. The Copperfield fans were pulling nervously at their collars trying to spin the quote into something a little less goofy. These were members of David's official fan club, mind you, inculding the presidnet, and they were playing spin doctor on the quote.

Ironicly, it took Randi's comments to wake Copperfield up and set the record straight.

that is exactly what he says, that is another piece of Princhester illiteracy. No, he says that it is possible to fake boards to be easily broken and some displays use fake boards, but most martial arts experts use real boards and real bricks.

ACtually, no. They're still using prop boards. Note ht mention of the Pine Boards as well as the mans comments: "Also, my first attempt to break one concrete slab - similar to the ones on your webpage ". He's confirmed the use of rigged concrete.

Another case of Randi printing a story without bothering to check the facts, and spewing forth a load of ill-mannered abuse against an undeserving target. He does this a lot.

I think not.

See, the thing is, Princhester, Randi just says any old thing to attack the people he disagrees with, he never cares whether its true, or accurate, just as long as it discredits them, he'll say it.

Untrue.

It's not enough for him to say that Uri Geller uses complex magic tricks which he invented himself, which would be true. Instead, Randi claimed that Geller uses simple magic tricks that came off cereal packets, which is a lie. You don't care about him making that sort of distortion, but I do. That's what makes me honest, and you a Randi fan. [/B]

You have proof that the cereal packets comment is a lie? Then why didn't Geller win his lawsuit against Randi?

Chupacabras

22nd September 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
the harm is that sensible people wouldn't believe what Uri Geller has to say...

But...
That's what we said about Uri Geller from the very beginning!!!!!!!! Sensible people would actually BELIEVE what UG has to say... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Realize: the reverse of your statement is also oh-so-true.

hgc

22nd September 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Yes, indeed:http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm

Randi's exact words were "the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research."

He has made similar claims in other articles.

The Randi fan quoted this as saying underground rivers are fictional, and another Randi fan stated that there are no underground rivers.

Of course, after I posted proof that Underground rivers are real, Princhester desperately attempted backtracking, lying and weasling, denying that Randi had said that, claiming that Randi-fan's words 'Randi says underground rivers are fictional' mean something else, and 'underground rivers don't exist' means something else, and so on. I have never seen where Randi says there's no such thing as an underground river, but I'm willing for you to show a quote.

In the meantime, let me explain what Randi's statement above means. Dowsers often speak of underground rivers as the 'target' of their dowsing rods, and indeed Randi is relating a funny story in the article about how 2 dowsers in a test disagree about the location of underground rivers in that particular test. But dowsers (for water) mostly practice their trade locating good well drilling locations. But well water almost universally comes from water suspended in the soil or bedrock. So when Randi says, "the 'underground river' notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research," he means that dowsers are not locating underground rivers (because they're rarely present) and that's not where you're drilling to anyway if you're drilling a well.

So now that I've explained that, am I backtracking, lying or weasling? You have made the claim that Randi said there's no underground rivers. I await the evidence.

Chupacabras

22nd September 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by hgc
You have made the claim that Randi said there's no underground rivers. I await the evidence.

Before we start a sub-debate on obscure interpretations, allow me to use paranthesis: Randi is denying ( the 'underground river' notion that dowsers maintain ) - the whole enchilada.

HTH

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 10:13 AM

ACtually, no. They're still using prop boards. Note ht mention of the Pine Boards as well as the mans comments: "Also, my first attempt to break one concrete slab - similar to the ones on your webpage ". He's confirmed the use of rigged concrete.

No. Go back and read.

Randi says : I went to my nearby lumber-yard and asked for some 1" X 8" X 14" pine boards, and the clerk immediately asked if I wanted them for karate demonstrations. Yes, I said, and I wanted the grain going across the boards, not along the length. Well, he told me, we have those already cut, for karate schools — but be careful not to let them bounce around in the car, because they split very easily He also told me they carried paving-bricks specially made for the schools, too. These were very high in sand-content, he said, so they crumbled easily.

But the expert says You are given a specific technique (some hard enough when your only target is a soft pad), and told to break one, two, or more boards or cinder slabs, and if the instructor is worth his belt, the boards are solid pine and the cinder slabs have not been soaked in water.
So, he's talking about normal pine boards, and ordinary cinder slabs, not the specially made ones that break easily.

Randi says Anyone can do this. It's a simple stunt. It's not a miracle. It's a fake. But the expert says my first attempt to break one concrete slab - similar to the ones on your webpage - failed because I hit the surface hard, but didn't hit through it (my hand was bandaged for several days). Hardly the case of "anyone can do it, is it.

The expert continues Every test there are strong men and women who cannot do a particular break, and they usually hurt themselves in the attempt I agree with you that this is no miracle, but as far as stunts go, it's not necessarily simple, and it's not fake. So please, don't suggest that "anyone can do it" - if done wrong, it can be very dangerous.

So there we are, its not simple, its not a fake, Randi is wrong.

Note what Randi says : "Its a fake" are his exact words. Not "it can be faked" or "sometimes its a fake" but "its a fake." Because it is possible to fake it, Randi concludes that it is always a fake, and anyone can do it.

The expert sets him straight, its real, its dangerous, and it takes training to do it right.

kookbreaker

22nd September 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

So there we are, its not simple, its not a fake, Randi is wrong.

Note what Randi says : "Its a fake" are his exact words. Not "it can be faked" or "sometimes its a fake" but "its a fake." Because it is possible to fake it, Randi concludes that it is always a fake, and anyone can do it.

The expert sets him straight, its real, its dangerous, and it takes training to do it right.

Point taken. However, I really fail to see the problem. There is undoubtably fakery going on in the Martial Arts worls (see the writings of Thaiboxerian on this) and Randi made a comment about it. He was corrected, but the expert in question certinaly seemed to agree with him for the most part. You seem to want to remain angry at him. I beleive you were saying that Randi rarely correcting his misstatemens, yet here he does do that. Will you now retract your comment about Randi rarely admitting error.

Nobody's perfect, but Randi is doing a much better job at honesty than you are.

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 10:55 AM

Point taken. However, I really fail to see the problem. There is undoubtably fakery going on in the Martial Arts worls (see the writings of Thaiboxerian on this) The problem is that Randi assumes that because someare faking, therefore allare faking.

the expert in question certinaly seemed to agree with him for the most part. The expert totally disagrees with him.

I beleive you were saying that Randi rarely correcting his misstatemens, yet here he does do that. Will you now retract your comment about Randi rarely admitting error.
No, because the number of times Randi admits error is small, compared to the number of errors he makes. Just because he has admitted a few doesn't make him honest.

Nobody's perfect, but Randi is doing a much better job at honesty than you are. and yeyt you are unable to produce speecific exapmples of any 'dishonesty' on my part.

You have different opinionns to me on some subjects, and have quoted your own opinion as facts while claiming my opinions as lies. You have a few word games, where we dispute the precise meaning of a word or phrase. And you have a few small errors on my part, which I have admitted. But you no examples that an unbiased person would regard as 'dishonest.'

You, OTOH, constantly twist words, and claim people said the exact opposite of what they really said.

kookbreaker

22nd September 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris The problem is that Randi assumes that because someare faking, therefore allare faking.

The expert totally disagrees with him.

Totally? I'd like to see where he says that. He seems to be clarifying things and pointing out that there are cases where it is real, as well as devlivering some words of warning.

If he totally disagreed with him then why does he say "Sure, any adult person should be able to punch through a pine board if held correctly - and you actually punch through it"

No, because the number of times Randi admits error is small, compared to the number of errors he makes. Just because he has admitted a few doesn't make him honest.

That is undemonstrated by you.

and yeyt you are unable to produce speecific exapmples of any 'dishonesty' on my part.

I'd say your rather sorry take on the the [I]'underground river' notion that dowsers maintain is an example of deliberate dishonesty or obtuseness.

There's the bit where you tried to make Randi missing the joke into his being dishonest.

The David Copperfield incident was presented as Randi being dishonest when in fact Copperfield's own fans were quite polaxed by the comments. Then there was your attempt to claim that Geller's lawsuits were not frivilous despite the fact that the court says they were.

You have different opinionns to me on some subjects, and have quoted your own opinion as facts while claiming my opinions as lies. You have a few word games, where we dispute the precise meaning of a word or phrase. And you have a few small errors on my part, which I have admitted. But you no examples that an unbiased person would regard as 'dishonest.'

You, OTOH, constantly twist words, and claim people said the exact opposite of what they really said. [/B]

Wah. wah. wah. The only person playing word games here is you, and your desperation is showing.

kookbreaker

22nd September 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, because the number of times Randi admits error is small, compared to the number of errors he makes.

By the way, I'd like to see some real examples of this. Real examples, not your piddling attempts to put words in his mouth.

TheBoyPaj

22nd September 2003, 12:20 PM

Not entirely on topic for this thread, but I recently tried to buy a copy of Randi's book about Geller from the publishers, and was told that they cannot sell me a copy as Geller will sue anyone who sells in them the UK.

Now there's a man with nothing to hide.

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 02:58 PM

The David Copperfield incident was presented as Randi being dishonest

No, it was given as an example of Randi making wild and baseless statements without bothering to check the facts. I never claimed it was dishonesty, only his usual careless disregard for accuracy. He does this a lot.

Then there was your attempt to claim that Geller's lawsuits were not frivilous despite the fact that the court says they were.

That is an example of you stating your opinion as fact. My opinion is that most of Gellers lawsuits are not frivilous. He sued people who claimed he was involved in criminal activities. You say that it is frivilous. This is a difference of opinion, don't you see that? Claiming that your opinion is 'truth' and that I'm lying because I disagree with your opinion is absurd.

And note, the court never said his lawsuit was frivilous, only that suing CSICOP for Randi's libel was declred frivilous. they made no such judgement about suing Randi himself for his libel. You appear confused on that point.

kookbreaker

22nd September 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, it was given as an example of Randi making wild and baseless statements without bothering to check the facts. I never claimed it was dishonesty, only his usual careless disregard for accuracy. He does this a lot.

I would hardly call it "baseless" when to all parties concerned it seemed as if Randi was right. Actually Randi got on this issue very late. By the time he mentioned it the Copperfield fan club was trying to spin the quotes, other magicians were grumbling, and Copperifled was unreachable for comment. Even Marcello Truzzi was repeating the quote.

Yet somehow Randi gets singled out for criticism by you. Gee, you're fair and balanced :rolleyes:

That is an example of you stating your opinion as fact. My opinion is that most of Gellers lawsuits are not frivilous. He sued people who claimed he was involved in criminal activities.

Please name the suit in which Geller sued a person over allegations of illegal activity. Also please list the Judge or Jury's verdict in this matter.

You say that it is frivilous. This is a difference of opinion, don't you see that? Claiming that your opinion is 'truth' and that I'm lying because I disagree with your opinion is absurd.

The truth is that you tried to present the Geller suits as not being frivilous and implied that it was Randi's fault that they were betrayed as such. The truth of the matter is that the courts called Geller was excessively litiginous. You were dishonest to present Geller's lawsuits in this manner.

And note, the court never said his lawsuit was frivilous, only that suing CSICOP for Randi's libel was declred frivilous. they made no such judgement about suing Randi himself for his libel. You appear confused on that point. [/B]

Your comments were:

I seriously doubt that he'd try. His lawsuits are not that frivolous, despite Randi's attempts to make them appear so."

As shown, you are wrong. Once again take the petty swipe at Randi

He sued Randi because Randi accused him of being involved in an conspiracy to blackmail Randi.

No such lawsuit ever took place. Geller's only lawsuit against Randi that made it to court was over Cereal boxes. You have declared that comment to be a lie in this thread without proof of any kind.

He sued several newspapers for printing claims that he was involved in various criminal frauds, (information that the newspapers had taken from Randi's book)

A dishonest representation of Geller's Prometheus Book lawsuit that Geller lost. He lost because that Prom. did not accuse him of such.

He sued Randi and a Japanese newspaper that printed Randis claim that Geller drove a friend to suicide.

Dishonesty again. Randi never made such statements, which is why the court threw out the case. Geller's lawsuit even failed against the newspaper in question

And, finally, he sued Pokemon for attempting to make a financial gain from unauthorized use of his name and picture

Geller had no case, which is why it was tossed . Even dumber was the fact that he tried to sue Nintendo in the US, where the card in question is named "Alakazam" (or something like that). Geller knew that his suit was a waste of the court's time and he would have to pay a lot of money had he filed it in Japan

Geller was just making noise about publicity. The card gaming community was laughing at the pathetic Geller's attention getting scheme. Geller's picture was never used, just a bent spoon, which is not a trademarked item. Yet you called this a "serious matter". Sure, its just an opinion, but yours is an idiotic one, not based in reality.

Peter Morris

22nd September 2003, 07:20 PM

Kook, please try to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

It is not 'wrong' or 'a lie' or 'dishonest' to say that Gellers suits weren't frivilous, its an opinion, and you have shown nothing that would change it.

However, you make numerous factual errors, that are wrong however you twist it.

just for example:

Dishonesty again. Randi never made such statements, which is why the court threw out the case. Geller's lawsuit even failed against the newspaper in question

Wrong, Randi said what he said, the court judged against Randi, and the newspaper made an out of court settlement.

Your description of the other cases is equally accurate.

You are in error, again.

kookbreaker

22nd September 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Wrong, Randi said what he said, the court judged against Randi, and the newspaper made an out of court settlement.

The court did not judge against Randi, it threw out the case without any representation by Randi. The insult tort is a quirk of Japanese law, nothing more or less. it is not a judgement against Randi by any means (and awarded less than 1/3 of 1% of what Geller was demanding, and is not recognized by US law). Randi's comments, and the subsequent mistranslation, have been explained several times. This is where you err grossly and deliberately.

As for the paper settling, we

Your description of the other cases is equally accurate.

You are in error, again. [/B]

Prove it. Tell us how you found out Randi's "Cereal boxes" comment was a lie like you claimed, for starters.

princhester

22nd September 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
As you would accept the word of Satan if he were praising Randi.

You are the only on who has provided a cite from the website of someone you yourself acknowledge to be liar.

Yes, indeed. Randi printed a story he didn't bother to check and hurled a load of vitriol against Copperfield. He does this a lot. Copperfield isn't the first to discover how ill-deserved Randi's reputation for honesty is, he won't be the last.

And then ate serious crow. A concept which, despite your constant inaccuracy, you are totally unfamiliar with. This makes Randi a good man and you a total hypocrite.

The simple fact is that Randi does this to all the people he attacks. His fans seem not to care when he does it to Geller, but that doesn't make it any less dishonest.

The difference between you and Randi is that Randi admits when he's got it wrong.

I that is exactly what he says, that is another piece of Princhester illiteracy. No, he says that it is possible to fake boards to be easily broken and some displays use fake boards, but most martial arts experts use real boards and real bricks.

You are a person who thinks that the correct way to quote people is to leave out qualifying clauses and then attack them for the lack of qualification in what they "say".

You are in no position to question my literacy or comprehension.

Another case of Randi printing a story without bothering to check the facts, and spewing forth a load of ill-mannered abuse against an undeserving target. He does this a lot.

See, the thing is, Princhester, Randi just says any old thing to attack the people he disagrees with, he never cares whether its true, or accurate, just as long as it discredits them, he'll say it.

Sort of like you and Musicat in that SD thread. Only Randi admits he got it wrong later.

It's not enough for him to say that Uri Geller uses complex magic tricks which he invented himself, which would be true. Instead, Randi claimed that Geller uses simple magic tricks that came off cereal packets, which is a lie. You don't care about him making that sort of distortion, but I do. That's what makes me honest, and you a Randi fan.

You only know or care about other people's honesty. Indeed, you care about Randi's honesty to the point of obsession. Your own lack of honesty you pass off as minor forgetfulness, when you acknowledge it at all (which is rare). Slack you would not allow Randi in a million years.

princhester

22nd September 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Oh, yeah, I remember that.

Some Randi fan made the comment "Randi says that underground rivers are fictional"

I showed evidence from geological websites that underground rivers are not fictional, but actually quite common within Karst.

Then Princhester attacked me, claiming that Randi had never said any such thing, and that I am lying for quoting him as such, and demanding that I apologise.

Pathetic, isn't he, folks

No, actually you don't remember at all. Or perhaps you do remember, but you are pretending that you don't so that you can avoid the embarrassment that remembering would cause you.

Here is the pit thread I started (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178616) to chew you out over this issue. It has a link to the original thread in my first post. It has nothing to do with the "Randi says that underground rivers are fictional" furphy.

It was another mistake of yours altogether. Not only that, but as you well know, I was incensed not by your mistake, but by your slimy blaming of your mistake on others.

Peter, in recent threads I have simply given up on debating you. Each time I start, I quickly reach the point at which I come to the realisation that debating someone who pounces on anything that could conceivably be described as a mistake by Randi as evidence of his total lack of bone fides, but who themselves has no interest in truth or accuracy even in relation to basic on line searchable facts as to which poster said what is just not worth the effort.
.

That point has yet again been reached. In record time on this occasion, given that you managed to evidence total lack of factual accuracy in your very first post in reply to me.

There is no polite way to explain your utter blinkeredness in relation to your own hypocrisy

Oh, and by the way. Ages ago, in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181436), we were debating the hoary old "Randi is a liar because he says the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is fiction". And I located a cite in which a government geologist says almost exactly what Randi does (http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/geology/adm/publications/WitchingWells.pdf):

"Diviners believe it is stored in veins, domes, and underground rivers. Actually groundwater seeps through the soil after rainfall and fills pores, cracks, and crevices in the rocks underground."

Surprise surprise you have never commented or acknowledged this cite. Is the government geologist also a liar? Or is it basically accurate to say that the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is in fact fiction? Or is it perhaps that the government geologist in question is merely mistaken but that Randi is a liar because Peter Morris' hatred of him and need to put him down burns brighter than magnesium?

Over and out, kook.

Darat

23rd September 2003, 05:28 AM

Chupacabras

23rd September 2003, 12:23 PM

Mmmm...

Unverified facts, twisted or non-existent references, skipping hot topics... Time for yet another cannonical list of "Questions Peter Morris does not want to answer".

1.- Where's the harm?
2.- (add your own).

:)

NoZed Avenger

28th September 2003, 01:19 PM

All right; I am home and haved solved a small internet issue. Everyone looks to have wound down on this one while I was away and I am sorry for bumping it, but I said I would look over everything and don't want to disappoint.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Lets start with his allegations that Geller puts lives in danger and has tried to start a religion around himself. I'm still waiting for evidence of those claims.

In 1974, Randi stated his belief that Geller was planning to enter into the psychic healing field and his opposition to that idea -- and the dangers to people's lives and health that would be involved. You have rephrased what was said so that you can portray it as negatively as possible.

At the time (IIRC), Geller was then still claiming to be given special powers by aliens, was he not? Given that and his insistence in the seventies that he was "trigger" or "catalyst" of healing energies that everyone has within them, I cannot say that Randi's concerns were out of line, especially given the beginnings of $cientology, for example.

Of course, you had already listed this complaint and were using it as part of your basis that Randi is "frequently prone to making these wild accusations," and I have already discussed it.

Now, consider Randi's remarks in the same letter "do not assume that Geller uses standard conjuring methods to accomplish his chicanery. I have been able to solve his methods only by careful study of videotapes...He does everything with great care, meticulous misdirection and flawless instinct" Contrast that to Randi's later attack on those poor dumb scientists with their PhDs, saying they were fooled by tricks that used to be printed on cereal boxes. This is a man who will say anything to discredit people he disagrees with, and doesn't care if the things he says are accurate or true.

Last part italicized to highlight the irony.

Some of Geller's tricks are old standby's -- some methods he may have come up with on his own -- as the early seventies is before my time as a magician, I cannot say which of the now-old appearing methods are even older, but if this is your "A list" of material, then I don't think there's much that you can show regarding your claim that Randi is "frequently prone to making these wild accusations."

And lets not forget Randi's wild and baseless accusation that Geller and Byrd were involved in an attempt to blackmail Randi.

This has been dealt with ad nauseum elsewhere. Others have jumped in on this. I can only say that, from what I have read here and on usenet, I am not convinced that the original suspicions were baseless. H*ll, I am not even convinced the original suspicions were wrong.

Then there's Randi's claim that Geller has a criminal record in Israel for fraud connected with his psychic claims.

Well, I have seen a number of claims that he was a fraud, including (IIRC) from the NY Times (Not from Randi). This seems different, though, as you are saying there was supposed to be a criminal record, which I assume you are also asserting was untrue. However, could you cite the original statement so that I can see it?

And here you can find an account of Randi's attack on the "Metronics Corporation of Minneapolis" - quite extraordinary http://www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge14.htm

So someone created a fake news report and sent it to someone who sent it to Randi and he believed it -- as apparently the people who sent it to him. This is still your "A list"?

Then, there's quite a few in his Swift columns, where he has attacked someone, then a few weeks later has apologised and admitted he was wrong, either because Randi didn't bother checking the facts, or because the person was actually making a joke that went right over Randi's head.

All part of your claim that he never apologizes, and apologizes too much and admits error.

See, for example, Randi's attack on David Copperfield

Others have already commented on this -- have you written an angry letter to the newspaper who wrote the original story on this, giving the quote that Randi disapproved of? Thought not - Randi will be held to a much higher standard than the newspapers. Has the paper withdrawn their report and apologized, by the way?

And then there's Randi's claim that all martial arts experts are

As mentioned above

http://www.randi.org/jr/053102.html[/url] Randi examines a cospiracy-theory website, and declares "I'm sorry to say that I believe they are serious.... " then later had to admit that he had missed the joke.

I'm sure you had a point in posting this, but it doesn't support the claim.

More recently, he attacked Luhnd university http://www.randi.org/jr/091203.html see a forum response, suggesting that he may not have been quite accurate or fair in his comments: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870100799#post1870100799 Randi hasn't admitted error - yet. Want to bet how long it will be before he does so?

Are you back to saying that he never admits error, or that his wild "accusations" are shown by his apologies?

I could go on in a similar vein, but would it do any good? Would twenty, or a hundred such examples change your opinion of the man one iota? I doubt it. My experience of the Randi fans shows they are good at rationalising his failures.

I'd like to see the original source on the fraud matter, and whether Randi has ever said anything concerning what information he had. Examples might or might not do any good, according to whether they were good examples of Randi being prone to making wild accusations (to paraphrase) "like those against Geller/Byrd."

If you chose the best samples to make your case, then further ones probably are a waste of time -- some involve differences of opinion and some involve innacurate information given to Randi that perhaps should or should not have been checked further before Randi wrote or spoke. If you have something that truly shows what you are talking about, then that kind of example would help. Another example of Geller and Randi disagreeing over the interpretation of something, however, would not.

I apologize for not responding faster; I was out of town on business for much of the week and could not keepo up with the forums. I attempted several web searches on the older items that you mentioned above, but could not come up with much outside Geller's own website, which I do not consider reliable on matters concerning Geller or Randi.

N/A

Peter Morris

1st October 2003, 05:45 PM

To Princhester
No, actually you don't remember at all. Or perhaps you do remember, but you are pretending that you don't so that you can avoid the embarrassment that remembering would cause you.

Here is the pit thread I started to chew you out over this issue. It has a link to the original thread in my first post. It has nothing to do with the "Randi says that underground rivers are fictional" furphy.

It was another mistake of yours altogether. Not only that, but as you well know, I was incensed not by your mistake, but by your slimy blaming of your mistake on others.
You hate me for responding to what Randi fans said, you blame me for their errors. That's you all over.
Peter, in recent threads I have simply given up on debating you. Each time I start, I quickly reach the point at which I come to the realisation that debating someone who pounces on anything that could conceivably be described as a mistake by Randi as evidence of his total lack of bone fides, but who themselves has no interest in truth or accuracy even in relation to basic on line searchable facts as to which poster said what is just not worth the effort.

Princhester, the reasoh that you refuse to debate with me is that you are unable to answer my arguments. From your very first reply to my first post, you have poured out reams of hatred and invective. You post a few very weak arguments, I answer thejm, them you spew abuse and claim that you could answer my points, but you can't be bo9thered. You say that I'm being unreasonable, but you are the one who resorted to a stream of four letter words.

That point has yet again been reached. In record time on this occasion, given that you managed to evidence total lack of factual accuracy in your very first post in reply to me. My reply was 100% true, the fact that you are backtracking and trying to weasel out, claiming that you meant a different argument is down to your dishonesty.
Oh, and by the way. Ages ago, in this thread, we were debating the hoary old "Randi is a liar because he says the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is fiction". And I located a cite in which a government geologist says almost exactly what Randi does: "Diviners believe it is stored in veins, domes, and underground rivers. Actually groundwater seeps through the soil after rainfall and fills pores, cracks, and crevices in the rocks underground." Surprise surprise you have never commented or acknowledged this cite.[/quote]

Princhester, please try to understand a very simple point. It is impossible to answer every single line of every single post. There simply isn't enough time. I answered many similar points that you and others made, but you ignore that fact. You grab at any crumb of comfort you can find, you crow about one that I missed, and kid yourself that you've won something.

And what an absurd argument you make. You have some very strange ideas.

In Princhester-land there are only two possibilities, either Randi , and the dowsers wrong, or vice versa. He cannot comprehend any other possibility at all.

So, I point out errors Randi has made. You cannot defend those errors, instead you point out errors that dowsers have made, and claim that if the dowsers are wrong therefore Randi must be right. You cannot fit the concept of them both being wrong into your tiny little head.

Get real, Princhester. Showing errors made by dowsers says nothing at all about Randi. I have always said that the dowsers are wrong, but Randi is wrong as well

Oh, and another wierd idea in Princhester-land. Princhester thinks Randi is either 100% right, or 100% wrong. His little brain cannot cope with the idea of Randi being right on some things, but wrong on others.

So, Randi makes statements A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H.
Then I prove that statements C, D, F & H are wrong, producing cites from experts to show they are wrong.
Then Princhester posts a long rant in which he produces evidence that statement A is correct, claiming that if Randi gets [i]anything[i] right, he must have [i]everything[i] right.

Finally, Princhester has the strange idea that anyone disagreeing with dowsers agrees with Randi, even if they say totally different things. You have produced an anti-dowsing quote, and claim that Randi says the same thing. Where does he say that, Princhester? Where does Randi ever say that water seeps through the soil after rainfall and fills pores, cracks, and crevices in the rocks underground? He usually denies they exist.

What you have posted says nothing in Randi's favour.

Is the government geologist also a liar? Or is it basically accurate to say that the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is in fact fiction? Or is it perhaps that the government geologist in question is merely mistaken but that Randi is a liar because Peter Morris' hatred of him and need to put him down burns brighter than magnesium? Why would I disagree with this cite, Princhester, given that I have always said that water lies in cracks and crevices? And Randi has denied it. No, Princhester, the government geologist is not lying, is not mistaken, and does not agree with Randi.

Over and out, kook.
Ah, yes, your usual standard of debate.

Peter Morris

1st October 2003, 05:49 PM

To Darat
I am suprised given your line of debate about Randi's conduct in this thread that you didn't check the hearsay "Some Randi fan made the comment 'Randi says that underground rivers are fictional'" before running with that comment.

Your link certainly does not support your "Yes indeed" answer, Randi does not in that article state that underground rivers are fictional.

Or perhaps it was in another article in which Randi made the comment?
Randi fans cited that article, and quoted Randi as saying "underground rivers are fictional".
I agree with their interpretation of Randi's words, but if you reject it consider this. I posted his words on a geology forum, asked the geologists what the words mean, and whether they agree with them. see: http://tinyurl.com/p8u9 see the comments of the geology experts:
Peter : What do you think this sentence means?
J. F. Cornwall: : It means that (a) dowsers believe that water flows in 'underground rivers', and (b) the writer of the sentence agrees that this concept is wrong (i.e. "sheer fiction") and has no geological evidence to support it.
Peter: Is it true?
J. F. Cornwall: long explaination of how true underground rivers are only found in karst country, but other types of geography contain old burried rivers, which are a slightly different thing.
Peter: Thank you for your response. Does anybody see any other possible interpretation of Randi's words? I'm leaving this question entirely open ended to be as fair to him as posible.
Jo Schaper I see no other interpretation of those words.

I agree with the interpretation made by these clever people.

If you don't like it then you might look at Randi's words in another article: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html in which Randi says, unambiguously:
"One of the more common claims by dowsers, [Randi] said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground. "There are no streams of water flowing underground," [Randi] said. "

"No streams of water flowing underground." Randi's exact words.
But I expect you still won't admit that he said that. You lot always find a way to rationalise Randi's absurdities.

Peter Morris

1st October 2003, 05:55 PM

To Chupacabras
Mmmm...
Unverified facts, twisted or non-existent references, skipping hot topics... Time for yet another cannonical list of "Questions Peter Morris does not want to answer".
Name one.
Just because Princhester claimed I couldn't answer his qustion doesn't make it true. He is an appalling liar.

Peter Morris

1st October 2003, 05:58 PM

To NoZed Avenger

if this is your "A list" of material, then I don't think there's much that you can show regarding your claim that Randi is "frequently prone to making these wild accusations .... This is still your "A list"? ...... If you chose the best samples to make your case, then further ones probably are a waste of time
NZ, for the most part, I didn't choose Randi's most serious errors for my post, I chose the very very few occasions on which he has actually admitted error, or where error is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Some of them are serious, such as accusing Geller of blackmail, or criminal fraud - that is one of the most serious of Randi's lies. Most of them are fairly trivial in themselves, but the point is they were instantly provable.
There are many more serious lies Randi has told, but I didn't want to get into a long argument with Randi fans proving that the statements are untrue.
Then there's Randi's claim that Geller has a criminal record in Israel for fraud connected with his psychic claims. Well, I have seen a number of claims that he was a fraud, including (IIRC) from the NY Times (Not from Randi). This seems different, though, as you are saying there was supposed to be a criminal record, which I assume you are also asserting was untrue. However, could you cite the original statement so that I can see it?
As I understand it, one member of the audience was unhappy with Geller's performance at a show in Israel, Geller had promised a display of psychic powers, but gave a magic show. He sued Geller, and Geller was ordered to refund the price of the ticket.
In Randi's book, The Truth(sic) about Uri Geller Randi spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud. Various publications have repeated Randi's claim, and got sued.
See, for example, (from Randi) http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1993/0026.html
or (from Geller) http://www.uri-geller.com/courts.htm
NZ, I have shown you a list of definite lies Randi told, and your response is more or less to say so what. Why do you excuse his dishonesty? I repeat my question to you, how many such examples would it take to alter your opinion of the man? If I showed 100 or 1000 lies, would you admit he's a liar?

kookbreaker

1st October 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To NoZed Avenger
NZ, for the most part, I didn't choose Randi's most serious errors for my post, I chose the very very few occasions on which he has actually admitted error, or where error is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Some of them are serious, such as accusing Geller of blackmail, or criminal fraud - that is one of the most serious of Randi's lies. Most of them are fairly trivial in themselves, but the point is they were instantly provable.

I would say not. For example, you have failed to prove that the blackmail accusation was a lie. Serious accusation, no doubt, but unproven that it was a lie.

As I understand it, one member of the audience was unhappy with Geller's performance at a show in Israel, Geller had promised a display of psychic powers, but gave a magic show. He sued Geller, and Geller was ordered to refund the price of the ticket.

That is what happened.

In Randi's book, The Truth(sic) about Uri Geller Randi spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud.

Uh-huh. Find the words "Geller Guilty of fraud" in any edition of that book. Your own link shows otherwise.

Randi does innaccurately use the text "tried in a court of law and convicted on the work he did in Israel". Randi was mistaken about the incident since it was a civil suit, not criminal. Hence the apology from Randi.

However it is ironic that Randi apolgizes rto Geller over this when Geller frequently makes the same exact mistake claiming that Randi was "convicted (or found guilty) of lying in a court of law. He's referencing the Byrd civil suit.

Various publications have repeated Randi's claim, and got sued

However, because corrections had already been made, Geller lost and had sanctions placed against him for costs. Even his buddy Truzzi warned him against suing Stenger and Prometheus.

See, for example, (from Randi) http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1993/0026.html
or (from Geller) http://www.uri-geller.com/courts.htm
NZ, I have shown you a list of definite lies Randi told, and your response is more or less to say so what. Why do you excuse his dishonesty? I repeat my question to you, how many such examples would it take to alter your opinion of the man? If I showed 100 or 1000 lies, would you admit he's a liar? [/B]

You have yet to do anything close to that.

Randi was mistaken. Badly so. Its a shame, but it was not a lie. Corrections were made and that was that.

NoZed Avenger

1st October 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To NoZed Avenger

NZ, for the most part, I didn't choose Randi's most serious errors for my post, I chose the very very few occasions on which he has actually admitted error, or where error is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Leaving aside the dispuite over whether anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether any given "error" rises to the level of supporting the claim - that he is prone to making wild accusations such as the blackmail claim, that seems an odd way of supporting the original statement.

For example, reading that a fairly large paper reported (with quotes, IIRC) that Copperfield endorsed psychic powers and taking the paper at its word, for example, seems a far cry from making wild accusations like the ones you object to concerning Geller/Byrd. It seems the newspaper has more to answer for than Randi on that one.

Some of them are serious, such as accusing Geller of blackmail, or criminal fraud - that is one of the most serious of Randi's lies.

As the original assertion was that he was "prone" to making the same type of accusations as the Geller/blackmail claim, I don't think you can use that same incident for support. You were alleging a pattern of behavior on Randi's part to -bolster- your argument that it -was- a wild and false accusation. Bootstrapping it by using it as evidence to support that it was false is not valid.

The only claim that followed that came anywhere close is this later one in which you state that Randi wrote that Geller was convicted of fraud -- that is why I requested the link for it. I am going to take a look at it and reply after I have seen it and anything else I can find on the subject.

There are many more serious lies Randi has told, but I didn't want to get into a long argument with Randi fans proving that the statements are untrue.

I can only look at the evidence you support your position with; a claim that there is a hundred or a million is just that, an unsupported claim. If you choose not to use these "serious lies," then that's your choice.

As I understand it, one member of the audience was unhappy with Geller's performance at a show in Israel, Geller had promised a display of psychic powers, but gave a magic show. He sued Geller, and Geller was ordered to refund the price of the ticket.

In Randi's book, The Truth(sic) about Uri Geller Randi spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud. Various publications have repeated Randi's claim, and got sued.
See, for example, (from Randi) http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1993/0026.html
or (from Geller) http://www.uri-geller.com/courts.htm

Ok. I will take a look at these and see what else I can find now that I have some background.

NZ, I have shown you a list of definite lies Randi told, and your response is more or less to say so what.

Your interpretation of what you showed and how I responded do not match up, I am afraid. Definite lies?! An accusation of carelessness or insufficient fact checking on some I could understand, but you're saying your list is of "definite lies"?

Why do you excuse his dishonesty?

I do not excuse dishonesty. I remain unconvinced of it. I believe that this fraud matter is the most relevant example you've provided; I will take a look and see what I can find. I should be able to reply shortly - tomorrow at the latest (I hope).

N/A

NoZed Avenger

1st October 2003, 08:17 PM

Jesus Hopalong Christ.

I just read your first link, from Professor Stenger, talking about the 3 separate lawsuits filed by Geller against him.

From Stenger in the link:

The incident in question happened in Beersheba in 1971. While writing my book, I had read Randi's "Magic of Uri Geller," Paul Kurtz's "Transcendental Temptation," and C.E.M. Hansel's "ESP and Parapsychology." The first two referred to the incident with the identical phrase about Geller being "brought to court." Hansel refers to Geller being found "guilty of breach of contract."

[snip]

After the suits were filed, the publisher made inquiries in Israel which indicated that the incident appeared to have been a civil rather than criminal case. With my agreement, they inserted an erratum in the unsold copies and corrected the above sentence in a new printing to read:

"He began his career as a stage magician in Israel where he was once successfully sued for claiming his feats were performed with psychic power"

My position is that I made an unintended factual error in misinterpreting the words "brought to court" and "guilty" as "arrested," and that this was done without malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Note that the error was mine alone, and not that of Randi, Kurtz, or Hansel. Further, my publisher and I are interested in the truth and would have made the above
change if the error had been pointed out to us by a simple letter, without the need for costly lawsuits.

Your paraphrase: ". . .Randi spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud. . ."is itself such a glorious example of spin that I can hardly believe that you'd write it in the same message that you give that link toi Stenger's own words.

Stenger misinterpreted Randi's phrase "brought to court" as a criminal matter. He himself says that the fault was his, alone.

This doesn't even show a definite lie from Stenger, much less Randi.

You may well be sincere in believing that these incidents show a pattern of deliberate, intentional lies on the part of Randi, but I cannot agree. The backup for that allegation seems sorely lacking. I do appreciate you providing the link, but I don't see that it actually proves what you believe that it does.

N/A

Jeff Corey

1st October 2003, 08:18 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter Morris
[b] To NoZed Avenger[[ Various publications have repeated Randi's claim, and got sued.
See, for example, (from Randi) http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1993/0026.html
[QUOTE]
In that link, Professor Vic Stengel says, " The error was mine alone and not of Kurtz, Randi or Hansel."
So where did Randi lie?

Darat

2nd October 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To Darat

Randi fans cited that article, and quoted Randi as saying "underground rivers are fictional".
I agree with their interpretation of Randi's words, but if you reject it consider this. I posted his words on a geology forum, asked the geologists what the words mean, and whether they agree with them. see: http://tinyurl.com/p8u9 see the comments of the geology experts:
Peter : What do you think this sentence means?
J. F. Cornwall: : It means that (a) dowsers believe that water flows in 'underground rivers', and (b) the writer of the sentence agrees that this concept is wrong (i.e. "sheer fiction") and has no geological evidence to support it.
Peter: Is it true?
J. F. Cornwall: long explaination of how true underground rivers are only found in karst country, but other types of geography contain old burried rivers, which are a slightly different thing.
Peter: Thank you for your response. Does anybody see any other possible interpretation of Randi's words? I'm leaving this question entirely open ended to be as fair to him as posible.
Jo Schaper I see no other interpretation of those words.

I agree with the interpretation made by these clever people.

If you don't like it then you might look at Randi's words in another article: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html in which Randi says, unambiguously:
"One of the more common claims by dowsers, [Randi] said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground. "There are no streams of water flowing underground," [Randi] said. "

"No streams of water flowing underground." Randi's exact words.
But I expect you still won't admit that he said that. You lot always find a way to rationalise Randi's absurdities.

"you lot" - tells me all I need to know.

Chupacabras

2nd October 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To Chupacabras
Just because Princhester claimed I couldn't answer his qustion doesn't make it true. He is an appalling liar.

Is he? And like with UG, where's the harm? :p

Peter Morris

2nd October 2003, 02:48 PM

To NoZed Avenger.

Your paraphrase: ". . .Randi spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud. . ."is itself such a glorious example of spin that I can hardly believe that you'd write it in the same message that you give that link toi Stenger's own words.

Stenger misinterpreted Randi's phrase "brought to court" as a criminal matter. He himself says that the fault was his, alone.

I posted a link showing information coming from Randi. Randi's link excuses Randi. What a surprise.:rolleyes:

Did you read the other link I gave which quoted the errors in Randi's book? Did you bother? Randi said that Geller was "tried in a court of law and convicted"

The idiots who treat Randi as an accurate source of information may excuse him, and take the blame themselves, but the false information came from Randi.

Peter Morris

2nd October 2003, 02:57 PM

To Kookbreaker:

I would say not. For example, you have failed to prove that the blackmail accusation was a lie. Serious accusation, no doubt, but unproven that it was a lie

Eldon Byrd sued over the statement that he and Geller tried to blackmail Randi.

Randi admitted in court that the statement was wrong.

What more do you need?

Besides, it is up to the person making the claim to prove it true. If Geller really did blackmail Randi, let Randi prove it. I have no need to prove him a liar, it is his job to prove the truth of his statement.

People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I will assume Geller innocent of blackmail until I see proof of his guilt.

Until proof is given, Randi is a liar.

NoZed Avenger

2nd October 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty [unless it is Randi]. I will assume Geller innocent of blackmail until I see proof of his guilt.

Until proof is given, [I will assume Randi is guilty, however, and [Randi is a liar].

Just filling in to make the implied, explicit.

N/A

NoZed Avenger

2nd October 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To NoZed Avenger.

I posted a link showing information coming from Randi. Randi's link excuses Randi. What a surprise.:rolleyes:

I read the message as from Stenger, not Randi. Its his name at the bottom, isn't it? The remarks seem to be his.

Did you read the other link I gave which quoted the errors in Randi's book? Did you bother? Randi said that Geller was "tried in a court of law and convicted"

Geller's website? I read far enough to see that it was his. I noted his allegations, but need to obtain a copy of the book now to verify the truth of falsity of it -- especially as he doesn't seem to admit that he was ordered to pay, but alleges that some anonymous person sent money in to satisfy the plaintiff in that suit.

I have sent an email to afriend who had an older copy of the book to look it up and tell me if his version has anything like this in it.

Does anyone out there have an early version of the book?

kookbreaker

2nd October 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To Kookbreaker:
Eldon Byrd sued over the statement that he and Geller tried to blackmail Randi.

As well as the "convicted child molester" line. Which was actually the central matter of that trial.

Randi admitted in court that the statement was wrong.

You have the court transcript? To my knowledge, Randi only admitted that the molester comments were wrong. Do you have evidence for anything esle?

What more do you need?

How about an answer to the fact that Randi has restated his allegations several times and feels confident enough that he all but ignored Byrd's more recent attempt to sue. You have been provided with a link.

Besides, it is up to the person making the claim to prove it true. If Geller really did blackmail Randi, let Randi prove it. I have no need to prove him a liar, it is his job to prove the truth of his statement.

He's got the work of the postal inspector Mack,(link) (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8F7AAB66AINSnewsfeed%40207.54.80.23&rnum=3) who investigated the case and learned that Geller was with Byrd when they went to the police station to get the blackmail material.

People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I will assume Geller innocent of blackmail until I see proof of his guilt.

Until proof is given, Randi is a liar.

Wrong again.

kookbreaker

2nd October 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To NoZed Avenger.
I posted a link showing information coming from Randi. Randi's link excuses Randi. What a surprise.:rolleyes:

Its from Victor Stenger, not Randi. Just because it was on the old Randi-hotline does not mean it was automatically written by Randi. Those rolling eyes must be dropping back into a hollow head.

Did you read the other link I gave which quoted the errors in Randi's book? Did you bother? Randi said that Geller was "tried in a court of law and convicted"

Your previous claim was that Randi deliberately "spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud".

This was not the case. Randi was mistaken. He apologized for the error.

The number of deliberate lies and twist you have made in just this thread make you ten times worse a scumbag than the being you've tried to make him out to be.

Peter Morris

2nd October 2003, 08:20 PM

So accurate quotes from Randi are "deliberate lies" are they?

Quoting Randi as saying what he said is a 'lie'?

The fact that Randi admitted error eliminatesd the error from history, and its a lie to list it as an error?

Randi fans are a strange bunch.:rolleyes:

De_Bunk

2nd October 2003, 09:41 PM

Why are you lot even debating it...

Geller CANNOT bend spoons using paranormal powers.

Geller CANNOT start broken watches by shouting "Work" at them.

Geller IS a total and utter magician. He has no parnormal powers and Aliens didn't visit him.

Geller has a grip like a "hydraulic press", i know...i once shook hands with him.

I actually witnessed Geller bend a thin teaspoon, just using his physical strength, with his thumb and forefinger....

( I first noticed his forearm tendons and muscles, including his biceps, bulge and then i carefully watched the muscles in his hand become pronounced...When i pointed this out...he decided to ignore me....and he relaxed his grip, instantly.

Afterwards, when everyone was leaving,...he shook my hand...and he gripped it...painfully tight.....and i gripped back..deliberately grasping the fingers....

The sarcastic smile instantly left his face...and nothing left mine, as i wasn't smiling in the first place...and he let go...

Maybe he was worried i might affect his paranormal, "spoon bending" hand.

I'd think again if he bends a 6" long, by 2" in circumference, cylindrical tube...made the same thickness as the neck of a teaspoon...

If he can't...why not..after all its the same thickness as a flimsy teaspoon...

How about Geller bending a 10 ml, cast wrench...

How about "Dowsers" plotting a live minefield, successfully...

How about...blah blah blah blah...etc..

And the rest is history....

DB

kookbreaker

2nd October 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]So accurate quotes from Randi are "deliberate lies" are they?

Quoting Randi as saying what he said is a 'lie'?

What the heck are you talking about? Are you referring to your manic 'underground river' bits? Puh-leeze.

The fact that Randi admitted error eliminatesd the error from history, and its a lie to list it as an error?

No, its lie to exagerate the error as you have done. It was an error, but you claimed that Randi "spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud". Which is wrong on several levels.

You compounded that error with several more misstatements that I can only assume were done maliciously since your links contradicted what you claimed.

I'll admit Randi was wrong to have made that comment about Geller. But he at least admitted it. Have you ever admitted a mistake on this thread? (or any other her for that matter?)

Peter Morris

3rd October 2003, 02:03 AM

No, its lie to exagerate the error as you have done. It was an error, but you claimed that Randi "spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud". Which is wrong on several levels.

Randi stated that Geller was "tried in a court of law and convicted"

So, you are happy to excuse and ignore Randi's twisting of the facts, but you hate me for listing his lies?

kookbreaker

3rd October 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi stated that Geller was "tried in a court of law and convicted"

Its called a 'mistake'. But you claim that Randi ""spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud". Qhich is simply untrue and contradicted by the websites you quoted.

So, you are happy to excuse and ignore Randi's twisting of the facts, but you hate me for listing his lies?

When you prove that it was a lie, you can say that. As things stand, you have yet to prove that it was more than a mistake.

By comparison, you've lied several times in this thread (see above) without a hint of apology.

The first mark of a kook is that they can never admit they are wrong. Randi has admitted error, you never done so.

Peter Morris

3rd October 2003, 02:09 PM

Its called a 'mistake'. But you claim that Randi ""spun the incident into Geller being found guilty of fraud". Qhich is simply untrue and contradicted by the websites you quoted.

Says Kook, refusing to admit he was wrong.

SteveGrenard

3rd October 2003, 03:33 PM

Randi makes mistakes, we all make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are deliberate, sometimes not. It is hard to say how much tongue is in the cheek when such mistakes are made.

When Randi wrote to the President of the University of Arizona offering the University the privilege of submitting Schwartz's data for the million dollar prize he listed a group of people he said would be willing to act as referees and that he, Randi, would not take part in the judging.

He listed his editor, Michael Shermer;
he listed his friends Marvin Minsky and Ray Hyman, both senior exec council members of CSICOP and he listed one parapsychologist, Dr. Stanley Krippner. When Schwartz called Krippner to confirm, Krippner advised him that yes, Randi asked him but that he had refused because he was too busy to take on such a voluminous review at the time but offered to do a smaller study if Randi had one. I confirmed this personally with Krippner. When somebody spilled the beans (not Schwartz, not me) that Krippner was unwilling to participate, Randi called her a liar and said that if this were true he would push a peanut while naked, with his nose, across Times Square. He continued to dance around the subject but then made the whole thing moot by refusing to discuss this or anything else regarding the original offer he made to the University with Schwartz.

Was Randi mistaken? Possibly But he never apologized, never said he made an error and he never pushed that peanut. At the least he should have apologized to the person he called a liar.

kookbreaker

3rd October 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi makes mistakes, we all make mistakes. Sometimes
He listed his editor, Michael Shermer;
he listed his friends Marvin Minsky and Ray Hyman, both senior exec council members of CSICOP and he listed one parapsychologist, Dr. Stanley Krippner. When Schwartz called Krippner to confirm, Krippner advised him that yes, Randi asked him but that he had refused because he was too busy to take on such a voluminous review at the time but offered to do a smaller study if Randi had one. I confirmed this personally with Krippner. When somebody spilled the beans (not Schwartz, not me) that Krippner was unwilling to participate, Randi called her a liar and said that if this were true he would push a peanut while naked, with his nose, across Times Square. He continued to dance around the subject but then made the whole thing moot by refusing to discuss this or anything else regarding the original offer he made to the University with Schwartz.

Already covered, Steve (http://www.randi.org/jr/05-18-2001.html)

SChwartz is the one who calls Randi a liar.

"I did contact someone, and have email documentation that Randi lied about his conversation with this person. "

But Randi did contact him. THings became too busy for Krippner, though and he bowed out, apparently putting most of hte blame on Schwartz.

I fail to se the lie by Randi here.

SteveGrenard

3rd October 2003, 04:23 PM

Timing is everything. We had already known that Krippner bowed out and had told that to Randi before he had denied it, in writing, in his commentary and made the peanut pushing offer. What was he hoping to accomplish? Make people believe he still didn't know it? Perhaps. And perhaps he was so busy he really didn't know it. Perhaps it was in a pile of messages he didn't get to look at yet. I don't know. It was never discussed again by him. At this unfortunate and inopportune juncture he said that Schwartz was overwhelming him with details or minutiae or whatever and said he was no longer taking calls or reading Schwartz' e-mail.

It became a moot point by Randi's choosing. Fine, well and good. But he did not apologize for calling the person who revealed this pubicly a liar. She was not lying.

kookbreaker

3rd October 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

It became a moot point by Randi's choosing. Fine, well and good. But he did not apologize for calling the person who revealed this pubicly a liar. She was not lying.

Here are Pam's words quoted in the material, followed by Randi's comments.

"In an email I just received from [Dr. Gary E.] Schwartz, he states that Randi mis?represented his "Committee." Schwartz contacted one of the four purported members — he said that he had not been contacted by Randi, and if he had been, he would have declined."

Now note Randi's replies, with emphasis:

If Pam Blizzard — whoever she is — said that, either she is a blatant liar, or Schwartz has misrepresented the situation. I very much doubt that Schwartz e-mailed that to Pam. All four of those persons have agreed to be listed and to serve on the committee.

Here's a challenge: If Pam Blizzard will identify this proposed person — who I notice is not named! — and provide the statement in which he said that if he had been contacted by me and asked to serve, he would have declined, I'll push a peanut across Times Square with my nose, naked. How can she pass up that offer? Pam, you're a liar. Unless, that is, Dr. Schwartz — or someone claiming to be Schwartz — did make such a statement, in which case he is the guilty party. Inescapably, someone here is lying. It is not I.

From the:

5/11 commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/05-11-2001.html)

Randi stated she was lying or was lied to by Schwartz, He doubted the latter but that turned out to be the truth.

The peanut pushing comment is a direct challenge to prove that Kripper (or any other rep) was never contected by Randi.

SteveGrenard

3rd October 2003, 05:11 PM

Randi wrote AND YOU QUOTED:

" All four of those persons have agreed to be listed and to serve on the committee."

This is untrue and I am being polite. Krippner declined the offer when Randi asked him to serve so all 4 did not agree to be listed and serve on the committee. Three (Minsky, Hyman and Shermer) did. Is it possible we are arguing over whether Krippner was contacted or not and that either Schwartz or Blizzard, in quoting Schwartz, got that part wrong? Sure. Krippner told me personally he was contacted and he declined. End of story.

This goes beyond whether he was contacted or not. Randi persisted in using Krippner's name in the letter and in his peanut pushing commentary after we knew Krippner declined and, presumably, after Randi knew he declined. He continued to state that all four agreed to serve. I gave Randi the benefit of the doubt. Vis a vis the contact issue until or unless it can be verified by someone other than Randi, all we have is this double talk on the issue. A magician's glib slight of tongue? Is it possible the word "contact" was used by Randi and not by the others? Why would Schwartz, for example, say Randi did not contact Krippner if Krippner spoke with him and told him yes, Randi contacted me BUT I refused? No point. The misrepresentation was NOT over the issue of being contacted.
When I spoke to Dr. Krippner he was very emphatic on this point. He would have been doubly so with Schwartz.

Randi fired off his letter to President Imwalle of the University of Arizona and included Krippner's name. This was a misrepresentation of the make-up of the committee. Some might even say by including Krippner, it was designed to assauge Schwartz's concerns that 3 of the members were among Randi's best friends. Shermer is even his editor and, in a sense, an employer. Tell me Randi doesn't write a regular column for Shermer's magazine The Skeptic (U.S.)

Kook ....Exactly what part of the above statement by Mr. Randi do you not understand?

Edited to add:

Let's say Randi made an error, for which he has not apologized. This involved a serious offer for a million dollar prize over a claim that a series of mediums could talk to the dead and which caused great consternation and ire in Randi. I would've hoped that in something as serious as this he might have been a bit more careful; investigate the statement by Blizzard and apologize to her instead of continuing to claim "all 4 agreed to serve" which everyone seems to know was not and never was true. It is telling that after the peanut pushing commentary he never brought this aspect up again as he continued his diatribes against Schwartz.

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2003, 05:27 PM

Schwartz is an embarrassment to science and humanity. He has zero credibility as a scientist or a human.

princhester

3rd October 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To Princhester

You hate me for responding to what Randi fans said, you blame me for their errors. That's you all over.

Princhester, the reasoh that you refuse to debate with me is that you are unable to answer my arguments. From your very first reply to my first post, you have poured out reams of hatred and invective. You post a few very weak arguments, I answer thejm, them you spew abuse and claim that you could answer my points, but you can't be bo9thered. You say that I'm being unreasonable, but you are the one who resorted to a stream of four letter words.

[etc, etc]

Peter, there is quite simply no factual basis for anything that you say. I've provided links to the reality of your behaviour. Readers can follow those links if they wish. You haven't provided any links or cites regarding my behaviour because there are none to provide. Instead you just say "I am not a liar, you are" like a four year old.

Peter you accuse me of hating you. I don't hate you. The basis of my attitude towards you might best be illustrated in this fashion:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
From your very first reply to my first post, you have poured out reams of hatred and invective.

Do you actually believe that? If you do, my attitude is that you are sad and deluded. If you do not believe that but post it anyway, my attitude is that you are a git who is not worth the bandwidth of replies. If you are just careless and post any old thing without considering whether it is true or not, you are an utter hypocrite, because that is precisely what you accuse Randi of.

It has to be one of the above, because here is a link (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3271936#post3271936) to the first post on the subject of Randi by you that I am aware of. Two posts down from that is my first reply. You will note that your very first post abuses sceptics, calling them gullible and putzes, and that my first post doesn't contain any hatred or invective at all.

Peter Morris

3rd October 2003, 08:47 PM

Yes, folks, please look at Princhester's first post to me.

"I think I'll withhold my welcome to the boards for the moment"

His very first words to me were an insult.

"You appear to have uncritically swallowed that disinformation."

Another insult. Princhester, you might you let other peolpe tell you what to think, but I don't. I formed my opinion of him by observing him tell a lot of lies, not by hearing anyone else's opinion.

"Do some homework and get back to us."

insult, insult, insult, from Princhester, right from the very start.
He resents me for pointing out how many insults he uses, but he has been abusive from the start.

His behaviour from this point onwards got steadily worse.

kookbreaker

3rd October 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, folks, please look at Princhester's first post to me.

"I think I'll withhold my welcome to the boards for the moment"

<...>

"You appear to have uncritically swallowed that disinformation."

<...>

"Do some homework and get back to us."
<...>

You seem to be incredibly thin-skinned.

princhester

4th October 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, folks, please look at Princhester's first post to me.

"I think I'll withhold my welcome to the boards for the moment"

Peter Morris: "You are a gullible putz"

Princhester doesn't say "welcome"

Peter Morris: "Waaah, you're insulting me"

LOL.

Pardon me if I move things around from here, the temptation to juxtaposition a few things is irresistable:

Princhester's reams of hatred and invective: "You appear to have uncritically swallowed that disinformation." and "Do some homework and get back to us."

Peter Morris: "I formed my opinion of [Randi] by observing him tell a lot of lies, not by hearing anyone else's opinion." and "Sorry to break it to you, Princhester, but some of us are capable of forming their own impressions"

And then when Peter realises he's wrong about something he said about Randi: "I mistook the words of Rittersport and Musicat for those of the great man (ahem) himself. My bad."

So were my criticisms "reams of hatred and invective" or simply accurate?

I'm happy to provide a little assistance every now and again, but basically when it comes to digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole, Peter, you don't need much help.

Peter Morris

4th October 2003, 09:52 AM

You seem to be incredibly thin-skinned.

Princhester, your insults don't bother me at all. They simply show you as someone who isn't worth listening to.

And when you deny making those insults, it shows you as dishonest.

"Peter Morris: "You are a gullible putz"

No, you liar, I never called you a gullible putz.

I called Randi a putz, not you.

As for the rest, you have uncrittically swallowed Randi's disinformation without question. Even after I demonstrated some serious lies Randi told, you still won't accept that he is less than perfect.

Believe me, "gullible" is the polite term for what you are.

Pyrrho

4th October 2003, 10:36 AM

http://www.dick-blick.com/items/452/10/45210-OA3ww.jpg
Putz Pomade
An excellent product for polishing plates to remove small abrasions before printing. Putz Pomade may also be used in cleaning other printmaking equipment. Instructions printed on the label. 15-1/4-oz can.

Pyrrho

4th October 2003, 10:41 AM

http://www.underthesun.cc/Classics/Baum/marvelousoz/marvelousoz11.html

An aged Winkie, dressed in a uniform of silver cloth, came forward to assist them to alight. Said the Scarecrow to his personage:

"Show us at once to your master, the Emperor."

The man looked from one to another of the party in an embarrassed way, and finally answered:

"I fear I must ask you to wait for a time. The Emperor is not receiving this morning."

"How is that?" enquired the Scarecrow, anxiously." I hope nothing has happened to him."

"Oh, no; nothing serious," returned the man. "But this is his Majesty`s day for being polished; and just now his august presence is thickly smeared with putz-pomade."

"Oh, I see!" cried the Scarecrow, greatly reassured. "My friend was ever inclined to be a dandy, and I suppose he is now more proud than ever of his personal appearance."

"He is, indeed," said the man, with a polite bow. "Our mighty Emperor has lately caused himself to be nickel-plated."

Chupacabras

4th October 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
As for the rest, you have uncrittically swallowed Randi's disinformation without question.

Hasty Generalization

FYI and FWIW, I do not like Randi a lot nor I agree all of the time with him. But when it comes to fighting against fraud and delusionists, he is outstanding, to say the least.

And ultimately, where's the harm? :p

kookbreaker

4th October 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
http://www.dick-blick.com/items/452/10/45210-OA3ww.jpg
Putz Pomade
An excellent product for polishing plates to remove small abrasions before printing. Putz Pomade may also be used in cleaning other printmaking equipment. Instructions printed on the label. 15-1/4-oz can.

That's gooood eatin'!

Peter Morris

4th October 2003, 04:30 PM

You seem to be incredibly thin-skinned.
Princhester, your insults don't bother me at all.

I've just noticed that this wasn't Princhester's comment I was replying to. My mistake.:o

princhester

4th October 2003, 04:31 PM

Your words, Peter, were: Randi has made a fortune out of the gullibility of sceptics [putz smilie]

Whether you take the putz smilie as referring to sceptics or Randi is ambiguous. Could be interpreted either way.

But you don't deny calling sceptics gullible.

So you are just nitpicking.

The more I've cornered your actual arguments, the more you've retreated to a position of pretending that all I do is insult you. It's all you have left.

princhester

4th October 2003, 04:33 PM

I started by providing a link to what I was referrring to. I'm sure, Peter, that others can find what actually happened, [if they can be bothered].

Peter Morris

4th October 2003, 05:00 PM

The more I've cornered your actual arguments, the more you've retreated to a position of pretending that all I do is insult you. It's all you have left. Yeah, right.

Look at your earlier attack on me in this thread, 6 paragraphs of personal attack on me, 1 paragraph where you repeat a weak argument you have used before (show a website that you claim agrees with Randi). Another paragraph where you attack me with a claim that I was unable to answer your point, although I had answered several similar points you made. Then you end with a bit more abuse.

This is par for the course from you, Princhester.

Naturally, I gave a complete and detailed rebuttal to your very weak argument, to which you have not responded at all.

And you claim that you've cornered my arguments.

The fact is, Princhester, every time we try to discuss Randi, you very quickly descend into abuse, and claim some sort of victory merely because I don't respond.

princhester

4th October 2003, 07:24 PM

Actually Peter there's two reasons I don't bother replying to you substantively. Firstly, it's just boring. You've fired all your guns, I've fired all mine. Readers can determine for themselves whose arguments are the stronger. If you come up with something new and impressive, if I happen to see it I might respond, as indeed I did last night in that other thread.

Secondly, you are as I have said before, about as accurate as a two bob watch (as my grandfather would say), you can't even get basic references to on line searchable facts correct, much as you flat out deny it (denial being all that's left to you). Arguing with a one trick pony is dull enough, but arguing with a one trick pony whose one trick is to attack someone's truth and accuracy, while evidencing a total disregard for truth or accuracy themselves, is just silly.

thaiboxerken

5th October 2003, 06:49 AM

I think Peter is just mad because he can't win the million and that the JREF threatens his very beliefs in superpowered people. Peter, grow up, people don't have superpowers.

Peter Morris

5th October 2003, 09:55 AM

Secondly, you are as I have said before, about as accurate as a two bob watch (as my grandfather would say), you can't even get basic references to on line searchable facts correct, much as you flat out deny it (denial being all that's left to you). Arguing with a one trick pony is dull enough, but arguing with a one trick pony whose one trick is to attack someone's truth and accuracy, while evidencing a total disregard for truth or accuracy themselves, is just silly.

I have on occasion made a few minor errors, which I have admitted. Princhester's claim that I deny it is a flat out lie.

One such, the one Princhester refers to above, was quoting words which I mistakenly attributed to Princhester, but they were actually written by a different troll.

Based on this one error, which he obsesses over day and night, Princhester reckons he can ignore anything I say against Randi, any number of Randi's lies are irrelevent to him, but my error outweighs them all, in his mind.

The fact that I have shown Princhester deliberately distorting my words on a number of occasions doesn't matter to him either.

ceptimus

5th October 2003, 10:02 AM

The point is that Peter Morris is the one making the claims. Peter Morris is claiming that some people might find water by waving sticks about. Peter Morris is claiming that some of Uri Geller's tricks may be more than just tricks. Peter Morris is claiming that Randi is a fraud. So it's up to Peter Morris to produce evidence that backs up his claims. We can argue about what level of proof is required. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' would be my starting point. I'm still waiting for credible evidence.

Peter Morris

5th October 2003, 10:50 AM

The point is that Peter Morris is the one making the claims. Peter Morris is claiming that some people might find water by waving sticks about Peter Morris is claiming that some of Uri Geller's tricks may be more than just tricks

No, that's the Randi fans' usual lie.

I have not posted anything in favour of dowsers, and have stated many times that I think they are cranks. And I have stated throughout this thread that I think Uri Geller is using conjuring tricks.

But I see Randi lying when he tests his claimants, and comment that Randi is equally dishonest.

ceptimus

5th October 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

No, that's the Randi fans' usual lie.

I have not posted anything in favour of dowsers, and have stated many times that I think they are cranks. And I have stated throughout this thread that I think Uri Geller is using conjuring tricks.

But I see Randi lying when he tests his claimants, and comment that Randi is equally dishonest.

I apologise. I misunderstood your position. But if you think dowsers, and Uri Geller and the like are frauds, why are you so concerned about Randi? He's surely just trying to debunk the frauds? He's not perfect, but he's one of the best debunkers we have.

Don't you think people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are more harmful to the general public than Randi? Most of us here think that Randi is doing a good job overall. Why do you want to spend your efforts on attacking him?

I'm confused.

De_Bunk

5th October 2003, 03:06 PM

Confused...

Me too...

WTF..

Peter Morris..

I also think Randi is not above scrutiny...Its what keeps him sharp, knowing that if he makes a mistake...its gonna be found..

Is that your point..???

DB

princhester

6th October 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

I have on occasion made a few minor errors, which I have admitted. Princhester's claim that I deny it is a flat out lie.

One such, the one Princhester refers to above, was quoting words which I mistakenly attributed to Princhester, but they were actually written by a different troll.

Based on this one error, which he obsesses over day and night, Princhester reckons he can ignore anything I say against Randi, any number of Randi's lies are irrelevent to him, but my error outweighs them all, in his mind.

The fact that I have shown Princhester deliberately distorting my words on a number of occasions doesn't matter to him either.

Some may believe the above. Others may choose to check the facts. Whatever, really.

Peter Morris

6th October 2003, 05:58 PM

I apologise. I misunderstood your position. But if you think dowsers, and Uri Geller and the like are frauds, why are you so concerned about Randi? He's surely just trying to debunk the frauds? He's not perfect, but he's one of the best debunkers we have.
Look at it this way. Once in a while science gets things wrong. An ordinary person might discover something that science says is impossible, but in fact is actually true. After years or decades of ridiculing the idea, science eventually has to admit that the idea was right, and rewrites the textbooks.

Here is an example of such. A nurse named Elizabeth Kelly discovered a treatment for polio. Her idea contradicted everything medical science knew about the disease. At the time, it was treated as an absurdity along with copper bracelets and homeopathy. Eventually, however, the doctors had to admit she was right, and they were wrong.

see http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html for details.

This treatment was at the time an alternative medicine, pseudoscience, paranormal, or whatever you want to call it.

So, here is a summary of my thoughts:

Sometimes a paranormal claim turns out to be true. As soon as it is proved true, it ceases to be 'paranormal.'

This does not happen very often, by my esitimate somewhere between 1 in a hundred and 1 in a thousand.

We should not believe any specific claim until it is proved true, but we should keep an open mind because any claim might turn out to be the next Elizabeth Kelly.

Ken please note, when this happens it isn't a super power, or an inexplicable miracle, its a technique that can be easily taught to others, or a new idea that can be adopted by science.

And please note that even a true claim may be tested and fail, as Kenny failed the 1935 Royal commission test.

Which brings us back to Randi. When he tests a claimant, it ins't that I actually believe the claim, I just see the abstract possibility of a slight chance that the claimant might be the next Kelly. But Randi conducts his tests with a mixture of incompitence and dishonesty. He is not remotely interested in testing claims to see if they are true. He presumes instead that all claims are false, that there never has been a true claim, and there never will be a true claim. Anyone with a real claim would fail Randi's test, the way Kenney failed hers. In fact, I think that anyone with a real claim would refuse to have anything to do with Randi.

That's my objection to him.

Don't you think people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are more harmful to the general public than Randi? Most of us here think that Randi is doing a good job overall. Why do you want to spend your efforts on attacking him?
Certainly I think Randi has done harm, or at least has the potential to do harm, by preventing the discovery of an Elizabeth Kelly or two. Whenever someone makes a claim like Kelley, some morons always say it can't be true because Randi's prize is unclaimed. You know who are.

As for Randi doing a good job, I have to disagree with that as well. I don't see him making any serious effort to educate believers in Browne & co. His works are directed at people like you, who already disbelieve in her. You might buy his books and enjoy his attacks on her, but do you serously believe that being called a woo-woo or a grubby will lead anyone to change their mind? His childish behaviour actually makes Browne seem more sympathetic to some people.

He acheives nothing good, and has the potential to do a lot of harm.

thaiboxerken

6th October 2003, 06:13 PM

We should not believe any specific claim until it is proved true, but we should keep an open mind because any claim might turn out to be the next Elizabeth Kelly.

Yea, but since there is no evidence of telekenisis, psychokinetics, mediumship and other such nonsense, it's not worth considering.

Ken please note, when this happens it isn't a super power, or an inexplicable miracle, its a technique that can be easily taught to others, or a new idea that can be adopted by science.

It's a superpower. It doesn't happen.

And please note that even a true claim may be tested and fail, as Kenny failed the 1935 Royal commission test.

Yea, but every time?

Which brings us back to Randi. When he tests a claimant, it ins't that I actually believe the claim, I just see the abstract possibility of a slight chance that the claimant might be the next Kelly. But Randi conducts his tests with a mixture of incompitence and dishonesty.

Which is your lie, you haven't shown one reasonable example of this.

He is not remotely interested in testing claims to see if they are true. He presumes instead that all claims are false, that there never has been a true claim, and there never will be a true claim. Anyone with a real claim would fail Randi's test, the way Kenney failed hers. In fact, I think that anyone with a real claim would refuse to have anything to do with Randi.

That's complete and utter BS. If you feel you have a superpower, feel free to apply and see what happens. The Yellow Bamboozlers claim to have powers, but can seem to only provide their proof in the form of a crappy video shot in the dark outside of protocol. This is the type of nonsense that we often see from the people that claim to have superpowers. Randi's tests should be very easy to beat, but only if a person has the superpower they claim.

That's my objection to him.

That's because you have some emotional issues and a strange empathy to believers.

Certainly I think Randi has done harm, or at least has the potential to do harm, by preventing the discovery of an Elizabeth Kelly or two.

Hardly, Randi would be one to give a million dollars to such a person.

Whenever someone makes a claim like Kelley, some morons always say it can't be true because Randi's prize is unclaimed. You know who are.

You are stupid. Kelley just didn't talk about her treatment, she actually showed it worked and proved it. Randi's is simply challenging the paranormalists to prove what they claim.

As for Randi doing a good job, I have to disagree with that as well. I don't see him making any serious effort to educate believers in Browne & co. His works are directed at people like you, who already disbelieve in her.

Randi gives lectures at colleges that are open to the public. We can't force believers to attend them, but they do get invited by skeptics.

You might buy his books and enjoy his attacks on her, but do you serously believe that being called a woo-woo or a grubby will lead anyone to change their mind? His childish behaviour actually makes Browne seem more sympathetic to some people.

The adjectives are appropriate, coupled with the challenge, it does change people's minds. I've changed a few by simply directing them to the website to read up about Browne.

He acheives nothing good, and has the potential to do a lot of harm.

He's only changed the minds of a few people I personally know, I think that's good.

Peter Morris

6th October 2003, 06:46 PM

Yea, but since there is no evidence of telekenisis, psychokinetics, mediumship and other such nonsense, it's not worth considering.

In the first place, there certainly is evidence (but not proof).

In the second place, there was no proof of Kelleys ideas until she proved it. Lack of proof doesn't make it worth investigating.

It's a superpower. It doesn't happen.

no, its just a normal now accepted part of science.

You are stupid. Kelley just didn't talk about her treatment, she actually showed it worked and proved it. Randi's is simply challenging the paranormalists to prove what they claim.

Did you actually read the link I provided?

Though she relished her role as David to their Goliath, Kenny was sure that a balanced examination would reveal the superiority of her approach. She cooperated with the Commission's doctors in their appraisal of how polio victims fared when treated by her regimen of massage and "muscle reeducation." The Commission included Kenny's longtime friend, advocate and mentor, Dr. Aeneas McDonnell. She was confident that its findings would vindicate her.

Her hopes were dashed. The Commission's findings, kept secret until the report's release, condemned her:

Do you think she would have passed a test run by Randi?
I don't.

Hardly, Randi would be one to give a million dollars to such a person.
Randi wouldn't gamble a penny if he thought there was a chance it might be won.

thaiboxerken

6th October 2003, 06:55 PM

In the first place, there certainly is evidence (but not proof).

There is no credible evidence, all the "evidence" of TK has shown to be BS.

In the second place, there was no proof of Kelleys ideas until she proved it. Lack of proof doesn't make it worth investigating.

Yes, but notice how Kelley proved it herself? Why can't the TK'ers do the same? Oh, it's because people don't have superpowers.

no, its just a normal now accepted part of science.

TK, psychokinesis, mediumship..etc, ARE superpowers. The Kelley treatment is not a superpower, nor was it ever considered such. Also, you keep failing to understand that Kelley was told to "put up or shut up" and she put up. Why can't the paranormalists do the same?

Do you think she would have passed a test run by Randi?
I don't.

Yes, that is IF Randi would've accepted it as a paranormal claim.

Randi wouldn't gamble a penny if he thought there was a chance it might be won.

That's complete Bull. He wouldn't gamble a penny if he didn't think the claim was paranormal.

Chupacabras

6th October 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Certainly I think Randi has done harm, or at least has the potential to do harm, by preventing the discovery of an Elizabeth Kelly or two.

Sooooo... None of those Elizabeth Kelly are responsible for their own outcome. Randi is the only way to go trough in this world and the only way to be tested and aproved. You suggest that we rely on him and his omnipresent banning power. You are attributing this to da man, not us.

But you are dumb and wrong.

Barney is evil.

Peter Morris

7th October 2003, 07:27 AM

Sooooo... None of those Elizabeth Kelly are responsible for their own outcome. Randi is the only way to go trough in this world and the only way to be tested and aproved. You suggest that we rely on him and his omnipresent banning power. You are attributing this to da man, not us.

According to Randi fans, yes. Randi fans reject any test done by anyone that isn't Randi.

Example: Uri Geller tested by real scientists with PhDs and stuff, pronounced genuine. Results of test rejected by Randi fans. If Geller is genuine, why won't he let Randi test him, ask the Randi fans. Nobody but Randi is qualified to test these claims, they say.

BillHoyt

7th October 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

According to Randi fans, yes. Randi fans reject any test done by anyone that isn't Randi.

Example: Uri Geller tested by real scientists with PhDs and stuff, pronounced genuine. Results of test rejected by Randi fans. If Geller is genuine, why won't he let Randi test him, ask the Randi fans. Nobody but Randi is qualified to test these claims, they say.

Balderdash. What evidence do you have that "Randi fans" won't accept any tests except Randi's?

Chupacabras

7th October 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
According to Randi fans, yes. Randi fans reject any test done by anyone that isn't Randi.
Yet another hasty generalization and downright wrong. You have to prove this statement, and it will be hard to define "fan", in the first place.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Example: Uri Geller tested by real scientists with PhDs and stuff, pronounced genuine.
Yet, in the very first post of this thread that you started, you say:
Originally posted by Peter Morris
What does Uri Geller do that's so bad?

AFAIK he receives money for performing his conjuring tricks on TV, and for his books, etc, i.e. he's just an entertainer.
An entertainer pronouced genuine. Now, will you please tell us what REALLY are you up to?

That is, unless you are just a Kook.

kookbreaker

7th October 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

According to Randi fans, yes. Randi fans reject any test done by anyone that isn't Randi.

Example: Uri Geller tested by real scientists with PhDs and stuff, pronounced genuine. Results of test rejected by Randi fans.

Wrong, try this: Results rejected by peer-reviewers of Nature magazine. Printed anyway with editorial explaining the poor nature of such tests. Randi explains why in a book.

If Geller is genuine, why won't he let Randi test him, ask the Randi fans. Nobody but Randi is qualified to test these claims, they say.

Doesn't need to be Randi. Just make sure a qualified magician is consulted and advice taken. Not somebody who dabbled in amateur magic, not a person "familiar with slieght-of-hand", not a "scientist incapable of being fooled", not a magician consulted months later. Nope, get a real, effective and skeptical magician in that mix.

It need not be Randi, he's just the only one who put up money and is willing to devote time to do this.

But I'm sure you enjoyed beating up that strawman.

thaiboxerken

7th October 2003, 03:20 PM

According to Randi fans, yes. Randi fans reject any test done by anyone that isn't Randi.

This is false. When testing someone to see if they are using magician's tricks or not, though, it's best to have a qualified magician on-hand to help design the test protocols and observe the testing. For some reason, Uri can't bend spoons when Randi is around.

Example: Uri Geller tested by real scientists with PhDs and stuff, pronounced genuine.

And the protocols were later found to be lacking by these "real scientists". A PhD doesn't make anyone infallible. Geller can't perform when a magician like Randi is around, why?

Results of test rejected by Randi fans.

Apparently, not just Randi fans but the scientific community as well.

If Geller is genuine, why won't he let Randi test him, ask the Randi fans.

Why won't he?

De_Bunk

8th October 2003, 09:04 PM

I'd take Steven Hawkings word for evidence of the paranormal...

DB

NoZed Avenger

8th October 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Example: Uri Geller tested by real scientists with PhDs and stuff, pronounced genuine. Results of test rejected by Randi fans.

How about your quote from earlier in this very thread?
(Quote from Peter Morris)

Read my original post - I specifically said Geller uses conjuring tricks. In my second post, I said <<Compare that to Gellers TV performances where he bends a spoon with a magic trick, but tells people that its a genuine paranormal feat>> If you don't understand this, email Randi and ask him what the words 'conjuring tricks' mean.

So despite real scientists "with PhDs and stuff" pronouncing him genuine, you say he's just doing a conjuring trick??

All you Randi fans are alike -- dismissing real scientists' opinions like that.

N/A

And I am now done with this particular troll of yours.

Peter Morris

14th October 2003, 05:30 AM

De_Bunk: I'd take Steven Hawkings word for evidence of the paranormal...

Interestingly enough, Randi slams Hawking for his attitude to the paranormal. http://www.randi.org/jr/01-26-2001.html

Is Randi's attack misplaced? Is Hawking right and Randi wrong?

De_Bunk

14th October 2003, 05:33 AM

They are both "Right"...in their own way...

If they could combine their collective knowledge...

I dunno...??

But you put an excellent point though...

( smarta*s )

:D

DB

Dragon

14th October 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Interestingly enough, Randi slams Hawking for his attitude to the paranormal. http://www.randi.org/jr/01-26-2001.html

Is Randi's attack misplaced? Is Hawking right and Randi wrong?
Yes, Randi's comment (hardly an "attack") is misplaced. The comment you refer to is one answer Hawking gave in response to a question on astrology. It is not indicative of Hawking's attitude to the paranormal, to which he has been hostile since he did some experiments at school which failed.

SteveGrenard

14th October 2003, 06:01 AM

It is not indicative of Hawking's attitude to the paranormal, to which he has been hostile since he did some experiments at school which failed.

Do you know what grade he was in when he did these? Was it fourth grade? Was it for a science fair? Were they published in any journals? Do you have any details of these experiments? Can you back up this claim with evidence? How did they fail? Did you check the design of the experiments for any flaws?

(Naw. You don't have to answer any of the above. I was just trying to see what it feels like to be a certain other person... it doesn't feel that good so I still don't know why he does it)

Dragon

14th October 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Do you know what grade he was in when he did these? Was it fourth grade? Was it for a science fair? Were they published in any journals? Do you have any details of these experiments? Can you back up this claim with evidence? How did they fail? Did you check the design of the experiments for any flaws?

(Naw. You don't have to answer any of the above. I was just trying to see what it feels like to be a certain other person... it doesn't feel that good so I still don't know why he does it)
I do have answers, just give me a week or so.:bgrin:

Meanwhile, why not ask Prof. Hawking? His experiments, influencing his opinions.

sackett

14th October 2003, 08:04 AM

Randi on Hawkings: "In my opinion, he gave a poor response to a question about astrology...."

Not a very vicious attack. More like a criticism of a specific remark, serving as an entree to Randi's own opinion about how to respond to astrolojerks. Hey, the guy's past 70, he's entitled to his say!

My impression of Randi, built up over the years, is that he's a blunt old Canadian* given to no-nonsense language. He champions intelligence, clear-sightedness, and rationality -- so OF COURSE he's going to be assailed and vilified by the woowoo industry.

*And don't try to tell me about Canadians! I grew up among Canadians! I even speak a little of their language. (Ahem!) "Thuh ither dee, whin I was oot en thuh moontains...." (Translation: "Recently, while travelling in Alpine terrain....")

Dragon

14th October 2003, 11:20 AM

Steve,

Right - to thoroughly derail this thread from the topic of Geller (who is old news and boring anyway) -

This is where I read about Stephen Hawking and his group of schoolfriends who I think were about 15 or so at the time -

Michael White and John Gribbin,Stephen Hawking, A Life in Science pp 15-16After Christianity came the occult. The group began to turn its attention to extrasensory perception (ESP), which at the time was beginning to capture the public imagination. Together, and in the privacy of their own dens, they started to conduct experiments during which they would attempt to influence the throw of a die by the power of their minds. Stephen was far more interested in this - it was quantifiable, real experimental work, and there was a chance that the idea could be proved or disproved. It was not simply a matter of faith and hope.
The craze did not last long. With the others, Stephen attended a lecture by a scientist who had made a study of a set of ESP experiments conducted at Duke University in North Carolina in the late fifties. The lecturer demonstrated that when the experimenters obtained good results the experiments could be shown to be faulty, and whenever the experimental technique was followed correctly, no results were obtained. Hawking's interest turned to contempt. He came to the conclusion that it is only people who have not developed their analytical faculties beyond those of a teenager who believe in such things as ESP.
and p170It is not only conventional religion for which Hawking feels extreme scepticism. The lessons he learnt from the ESP experiments in the fifties have never left him, and he has no time for mysticism or metaphysics in any shape or form.So possibly it was the lecture and not his own experiments that convinced Hawking. Good quotes though, especially the last sentence of the first extract.

SteveGrenard

14th October 2003, 01:57 PM

Thanks. While sounding facetious, I was really wondering if Hawking, as a schoolboy, had done paranormal experiments. This is one I never heard.
So it was his exposure to the experiment of somebody, most probably at the Rhine Center, that turned him off to the possibilities.... and the bit about Randi chastizing Hawkings about something to do with astrology (also something I am not familiar with) is an anecdote in the extreme. Yes? No?

Jeff Corey

14th October 2003, 02:13 PM

No. Randi wrote it, a link was provided above and you could read it.

SteveGrenard

14th October 2003, 02:21 PM

Thanks JC .... but

Still an anecdote unless you mean that Randi is absolutely infallible and incapable of saying or writing anything anecdotal. In which case, I humbly bow to him. I think.

Dragon

14th October 2003, 02:44 PM

Steve,
Randi was wagging a finger at Hawking for not dismissing astrology strongly enough. Peter Morris characterised this as "Randi slams" and "Randi's attack".
I pointed out that Hawking is sceptical of the paranormal in general and offered some evidence of that. I don't know for sure exactly what he thinks of astrology, but he is well-known for driving his wheelchair over the feet of those who ask him stupid questions.
I think any conversation with him on the subject, by someone near enough to him, would go something like -
"So Professor Hawking, is there any truth in astrology? ... Aaagh, my foot!"

Edited to add:- BTW the book I quoted is a very good read for anyone with an interest in science.

SteveGrenard

14th October 2003, 02:51 PM

Thanks

Dragon

14th October 2003, 03:01 PM

No problem. Hawking is much more interesting than Geller.
Get thee to Amazon.com and order the
book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0309084105/ref=lpr_g_2/103-7633614-2652621?v=glance&s=books).

Peter Morris

14th October 2003, 05:27 PM

Link reposted: http://www.randi.org/jr/01-26-2001.html

Randi was wagging a finger at Hawking for not dismissing astrology strongly enough

I disagree. Randi attacks Hawking for opposing astrology for the wrong reasons, then slams him for his approach to science in general.

Well, this is the reason I have so much problem with Randi.

In the first place, I am disgusted by the enormous arrogance displayed by Randi, to tell Hawking that Randi has a better reason than Hawking's.

Secondly, Randi is wrong, Hawking has the better reason.

I am in total agreement with Hawking's reason for opposing astrology. I oppose astrology for the same reason. Simply because astrology has not been verified by experiment. That is the right reason for opposing it, the only one you need. This of course implies that Hawking would believe if supported by experiment.

I am in total disagreement with Randi's reason for opposing. Look at it. Randi has decided that its "irrational" and "incredible". Who says so? By what criteria? This is an arbitrary opinion, not at all a basis for deciding whether something is right or wrong. Plenty of things were considered incredible, but were eventually proven true. Meteorites. Continental drift. Elizabeth Kelly's claim that she could treat poilio with a damp sponge.

Randi's claim that astrology is "irrational" is nonsense. It is right to oppose astrology, but not for Randi's reasons.

Then Randi slams Hawking for his approach to science in general.
"Hawkins, working from his approach to astrology, would not have agreed with quantum physics, either, I believe"

That is offensive, unfair, untrue, and just plain wrong. In fact, Hawking would not have agreed with quantum physics until it was proved true by experiment. Same with germ theory.

In fact, as Randi points out, "the germ theory of infection was laughed at by authorities of the day" who deemed it to be irrational and incredible. It is Randi, not Hawking that would have opposed germ theory.

Now, lets consider Randi's claim that Hawking's statement " it allows the ignorant to fortify their fallacious opinions about what science really is. "
Again, there's Randi's appalling arrogance. I think Hawking knows more about science than Randi does, let's trust Hawking to tell what science really is. Methinks its Randi that has the fallacious opinion of what science is, he who presumes to attack Hawking.

Oh yeah, and who the hell is "Hawkins" anyway?

Randi bad Hawking good.

Dragon

15th October 2003, 02:13 AM

Peter,
To repeat myself - I think Randi's comment was misplaced and not very well put. He made it clear that he was expressing his own opinion to which he is, of course, entitled. I disagree in particular when he suggests that Hawking would not have supported quantum physics for lack of experimental evidence - I think he is just plain wrong - QM had some very sound mathematics behind it before it was demonstrated by experiment. A theoretical physicist like Hawking would have been just the sort of scientist to support it.

You see I agree with Randi on most things (such as the fraudulent claims of, say, John Edward and Uri Geller as well as the combative way he debunks them) but when I think he's wrong I'm prepared to say so.
However I cannot see how Randi's words can be interpreted as an attack on Hawking, still less on his understanding of what science is.

On another point you make though -
Given our knowledge of physics, astronomy and cosmology, how can astrology be considered as anything but an irrational belief? In fact I think it's only worth bothering with experiments to disprove astrology because so many people seem to believe in that nonsense.
Your comparisons with meteorites etc are false analogies - there was nothing "paranormal" in those claims
unless you widen the definition of the word to include anything out of the mainstream.

BillHoyt

15th October 2003, 04:27 AM

Randi's claim that astrology is "irrational" is nonsense.

And exactly how is astrology "rational"?

Cheers,

BillHoyt

15th October 2003, 07:37 AM

Elizabeth Kelly's claim that she could treat poilio with a damp sponge.

Source, please?

Cheers,

Peter Morris

15th October 2003, 05:27 PM

Elizabeth Kenny : http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html

Correction: It was actually wet strips of wool, not a damp sponge. And I got her name wrong. Apologies.

Even so, it was at the time a 'paranormal' claim, one that went against the medical opinion of the day, and considered as ridiculous as copper bracelets and homeopathy. If Randi had been active at the time, he would have been leading the campaign against Kenny.

Peter Morris

15th October 2003, 09:06 PM

On another point you make though -
Given our knowledge of physics, astronomy and cosmology, how can astrology be considered as anything but an irrational belief?And exactly how is astrology "rational"?

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to argue that astrology is rational. It's just that what is 'rational' and what is 'irrational' is a matter of arbitrary opinion, which varies from person to person, and from year to year. What seemed irrational a few decades ago may seem perfectly rational today - or vice versa. And sometimes ideas that seem 'irrational' to some people turn out to be true, and sometimes 'rational' ideas are proved wrong.

Now, as for astrology, it lacks any large record of accurate predictions. That's why we should reject it, not because in someone's arbitrary opinion it appears 'irrational.'

kookbreaker

15th October 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Even so, it was at the time a 'paranormal' claim, one that went against the medical opinion of the day, and considered as ridiculous as copper bracelets and homeopathy. If Randi had been active at the time, he would have been leading the campaign against Kenny.

That's the joy of comments like this, like psuedoscience they can't be proven one way or the other.

Still, I'd like to know what indication you have that Randi would be 'leading the campaign' against Kenny besides your personal opinion. The only medical concerns Randi has campaigned against are ones that use obvious fraud and slight of hand tricks (Faith Healers and psychic surgeons).

Randi does comment (but hardly "leads the campaign") on the use of quack techniques that have been extensively tested and found wanting, but still are promoted by quacks. But the key thing here is that they were tested, multiple times. Randi is working in a vaacum here.

The difference between Kenny and the Hulda Clarkes of the world is that Kenny got results and documented it. Kenny dealt with scorn from folks who didn't have sufficient testing to claim one thing or another.

For every Kenny, there are a million money grubbing quacks whose work is borderline murder. Truth is, despite the scorn laid on the effective heretics, they actually stand out like a bright light aroudn the murkiness and lies of the quacks. Trouble is, one most look closely to see the difference.

Had Randi "led the campaign" against Kenny (an unsupported conclusion borne of your prejudice) then Kenny would have taken and won the million dollar challenge. Today there are a plenty of quacks who avoid Randi's challenge.

Peter's argument is little more than the old believer's "you would have prosecuted Galileo" line. Its invalid and unsupported.

Dragon

15th October 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Elizabeth Kenny : http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html

Correction: It was actually wet strips of wool, not a damp sponge. And I got her name wrong. Apologies.

Even so, it was at the time a 'paranormal' claim, one that went against the medical opinion of the day, and considered as ridiculous as copper bracelets and homeopathy. If Randi had been active at the time, he would have been leading the campaign against Kenny.
Peter,
To clarify, and for future reference, what is your definition of "paranormal"?

BillHoyt

16th October 2003, 04:45 AM

BillHoyt

16th October 2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to argue that astrology is rational. It's just that what is 'rational' and what is 'irrational' is a matter of arbitrary opinion, which varies from person to person, and from year to year. What seemed irrational a few decades ago may seem perfectly rational today - or vice versa. And sometimes ideas that seem 'irrational' to some people turn out to be true, and sometimes 'rational' ideas are proved wrong.

Now, as for astrology, it lacks any large record of accurate predictions. That's why we should reject it, not because in someone's arbitrary opinion it appears 'irrational.'

Would you care to try this one again, minus the pretzel logic that begins by asserting 'rational' is arbitrary and then ends arguing for rationality?

BillHoyt

16th October 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Peter's argument is little more than the old believer's "you would have prosecuted Galileo" line. Its invalid and unsupported.

They also laughed at Groucho Marx.

Cheers,

Peter Morris

16th October 2003, 06:49 AM

KookbreakerStill, I'd like to know what indication you have that Randi would be 'leading the campaign' against Kenny besides your personal opinion. The only medical concerns Randi has campaigned against are ones that use obvious fraud and slight of hand tricks (Faith Healers and psychic surgeons).

And copper bracelets, magnetic shoes, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine....

Randi does comment (but hardly "leads the campaign") on the use of quack techniques that have been extensively tested and found wanting, but still are promoted by quacks. But the key thing here is that they were tested, multiple times. Randi is working in a vaacum here.

The difference between Kenny and the Hulda Clarkes of the world is that Kenny got results and documented it. Kenny dealt with scorn from folks who didn't have sufficient testing to claim one thing or another.

Read the account. Kenny got herself tested by medical experts, who concluded: "We are now in a position to sum up this discussion of the Kenny method of treatment of poliomyelitis_. The abandonment of immobilization is a grievous error and fraught with great danger, especially in very young children, who cannot cooperate in reeducation_. It would be particularly damaging to adopt the Kenny non-splinting method of treating early cases_."

Peter,
To clarify, and for future reference, what is your definition of "paranormal"?

Something is paranormal if it is contrary to current theory accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

At the time scientific opinion stated the polio was a disease of the nervous system. Kenny offered the theory that it was a disease of the muscles. Her ideas were ridiculed by medical science at the time. Current medical theory now thinks she was right.

Thus her claims were 'paranormal' in 1911, but 'normal' today.

billhoyt : That is not paranormal
Oh? Why not?
What exactly makes copper bracelets and magnetic shoes 'paranormal' but wet wool compress 'not paranormal'?

If science eventually vindicates acupuncture, will you declare that that isn't paranormal too?

What about meteorites? At one time they were thought by superstitious folk to be the wrath of God, while science denied they existed at all. "A stone cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky" said one famous scientist of the day. His analysis of meteoric rock 'proved' that it was an ordinary stone that had been struck by lightening.http://www.drakkos.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/foibles.htmWhayt about the black stone of Mecca, probably a meteorite, venerated by millions of Muslims as their most sacred artifact. Are you going to tell me that this isn't paranormal?

BillHoyt

16th October 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh? Why not?
What exactly makes copper bracelets and magnetic shoes 'paranormal' but wet wool compress 'not paranormal'?

If science eventually vindicates acupuncture, will you declare that that isn't paranormal too?

What about meteorites? At one time they were thought by superstitious folk to be the wrath of God, while science denied they existed at all. "A stone cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky" said one famous scientist of the day. His analysis of meteoric rock 'proved' that it was an ordinary stone that had been struck by lightening.http://www.drakkos.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/foibles.htmWhayt about the black stone of Mecca, probably a meteorite, venerated by millions of Muslims as their most sacred artifact. Are you going to tell me that this isn't paranormal?
Magnetic shoes violate scientific fundamentals. The blood is not magnetic. The claim of effects is also disconnected from normal inverse-square laws, another violation of fundaments. Acupuncture's basis is an imaginary biofield called "qi". There is no such energy field. Imagining one can manipulate an imaginary field by turning the patient into a pin cushion is in violation of fundaments.

What about meteorites? What about that one scientist's comment? How is this paranormal? Good grief.

kookbreaker

16th October 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Kookbreaker

And copper bracelets, magnetic shoes, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine....

As BillHoyt has pointed out, there is a huge difference between these things and the Kenny technique. Those things listed above violate known laws of physics/chemistry, etc. They explanations have no basis inreality.

Kenny's method, by comparison, had a real explanation as to why it worked. It was a different method of treatment,not the equivelant of sprinkling fairy dust on the affected limbs

Read the account. Kenny got herself tested by medical experts, who concluded: "We are now in a position to sum up this discussion of the Kenny method of treatment of poliomyelitis_. The abandonment of immobilization is a grievous error and fraught with great danger, especially in very young children, who cannot cooperate in reeducation_. It would be particularly damaging to adopt the Kenny non-splinting method of treating early cases_."

Read it yourself: to come to that conclusion the Brit doctors had to deliberately ignore evidence cited in their own article. It was a shameful moment for them.

The American doctors by comparison, seemed to take to the technique farily quickly and rationally. It took some promotion by Kenny, but to go from one technique to a radically different one in the span of a year is remarkable.

Again, no evidence would be goign after this. Controversial medical techniques are nothing new, but there's a big difference between reccommending a change in the drug cocktail for treating HIV/AIDS and 'treating' the same disease by heating the blood. Thank you CNN...

Dragon

16th October 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...

Something is paranormal if it is contrary to current theory accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

...
:eek: :eek:
If so, then would the claim that the world is run by lizards and the claim that global warming is not influenced by human activity be in the same category?
Peter - this is your personal definition of "paranormal" which encompasses so much as to be meaningless.

Edited to add:- try using a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=paranormal), discussions are more straightforward if we agree on the basic meanings of words.

Peter Morris

16th October 2003, 10:46 AM

As BillHoyt has pointed out, there is a huge difference between these things and the Kenny technique. Those things listed above violate known laws of physics/chemistry, etc. They explanations have no basis inreality.

Kenny's methods violated known laws of medical science.
Medical science was wrong, and had to be rewritten.

The only difference is that Kenny's ideas have been vindicated, and acupuncture hasn't

Edited to add:- try using a dictionary, discussions are more straightforward if we agree on the basic meanings of words.

My definition: "Something is paranormal if it is contrary to current theory accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists."

Dictionary definition: "not in accordance with scientific laws"

No large difference there.

Or you might like to look at Randi's definition: "describing an event or condition that has been shown to exist, but which cannot be explained or accounted for by established laws of science." http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html

Kellys theories ran directly contrary to established scientific laws of the time. By Randi's definition she was supernatural.

The laws were later revised. She isn't supernatural any longer.

BillHoyt

16th October 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Kenny's methods violated known laws of medical science.
Medical science was wrong, and had to be rewritten.
What laws? There was no violation of laws involved. Sister Kenny's treatment simply provided symptomatic relief.
The only difference is that Kenny's ideas have been vindicated, and acupuncture hasn't
No, the difference is that acupuncture claims violate known laws of science. Sister Kenny introduced a new treatment, violating no laws of science. The distinction is paramount.

Kellys theories ran directly contrary to established scientific laws of the time. By Randi's definition she was supernatural.

The laws were later revised. She isn't supernatural any longer.
You are simply repeating your assertion. What "laws" were violated?

kookbreaker

16th October 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]

Kenny's methods violated known laws of medical science.
Medical science was wrong, and had to be rewritten.

So a treatment method is "law" in your book. I see.

Once again, you are wrong. There were no laws of science being violated. There was an overreaction to wether the technique was effective or not. Wrapping limbs in wool did not violate laws of science. Kenny did not invoke magic forfces, chi, or any other psuedoscience.

Medical sciences' treatment method was wrong, but medical science itself was not inherently wrong. Its ability to self correct was demonstrated, albeit with more bumps than usual. Had the critics paid proper attention, they would have seen how medical science was demonstrating the effectiveness of the technique, but they allowed themselves only to speak from their bigotry, a human failing, not a scientific one.

Just because something is new or contraversial does not make it 'paranormal'.

Peter Morris

16th October 2003, 03:23 PM

Once again, you are wrong. 0nce again I'm right, and you can't admit it.

kookbreaker

16th October 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
0nce again I'm right, and you can't admit it.

Oh really? Then exactly what medical "law" was broken by accepting Kenny's treatment? Do let us know.

Peter Morris

17th October 2003, 05:22 AM

You tell me what 'law' is broken by acupuncture.

Dragon

17th October 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You tell me what 'law' is broken by acupuncture.
The claimed mode of operation is by unblocking the meridians along which the universal energy or "chi" flows.
There is no evidence for such a universal energy. It does not conform to the known laws of physics. It is part of a metaphysical, not an empirical, belief system.

Now, answer kookbreaker's question or agree that he is living up to his name.

BillHoyt

17th October 2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You tell me what 'law' is broken by acupuncture.

Tell me how I measure "qi".

asthmatic camel

17th October 2003, 06:20 AM

Tell me how I measure "qi".

You need my all new qiometer, available now from BS Enterprises Inc. for a mere $3597.63 plus shipping. Order today, supplies strictly limited.

kookbreaker

17th October 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You tell me what 'law' is broken by acupuncture.

Now that you've gotten two answers to this pathetic attempt to distract, will you now either answer the question, or admit that you are clueless or a coward?

Peter Morris

17th October 2003, 11:02 AM

The claimed mode of operation is by unblocking the meridians along which the universal energy or "chi" flows.
There is no evidence for such a universal energy. It does not conform to the known laws of physics. It is part of a metaphysical, not an empirical, belief system.

And when Sister Kenny first started treating people with her method, there was no evidence for her theories either. It was therefore paranormal at the time.

Evidence was found supporting her theories thirty years later, so now it is no longer paranormal.

Now that you've gotten two answers to this pathetic attempt to distract, will you now either answer the question, or admit that you are clueless or a coward?

Ah, yes, abuse. The usual reaction of the desperate man who knows he's in the wrong, and has nothing else left.

sackett

17th October 2003, 11:45 AM

Pardon me for butting in so late in this discussion (a polite name for it), but I think Master Phillip Morris or whatever he calls himself is pulling your legs. Nobody with enough smarts to hit the keys could possibly find an analogy between a long-established clinical procedure and anything supernatural. My guess is that P.M. is about 15 years old and would -like- to believe in WoooOOOoooweee! stuff but is getting too old for it. The next best fun is to tweak the easily exasperated, and just look how well he's doing.

thaiboxerken

17th October 2003, 12:01 PM

Yes, this Morris guy is just trollling. The basis of his entire position is one of ignorance. He wants to convince us that because scientists have been wrong before, that they must be wrong about paranormal stuff now. I guess pixies must be real, since I didn't get a 100% on my math test in 2nd grade. Oh well, lack of logic and critical thinking skills is the #1 reason that people believe in such nonsense. The best thing to do is to just insult Morris and/or ignore him. Trying to have a rational discussion with a person like Morris is a waste of time.

Dragon

17th October 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

And when Sister Kenny first started treating people with her method, there was no evidence for her theories either.
Yes, there was. But it wasn't accepted. Read your own link
It was therefore paranormal at the time.
No. She made no such claim. The mode of operation - the relief of muscle spasms - was not outwith science.

Evidence was found supporting her theories thirty years later, so now it is no longer paranormal.
It never was.

Ah, yes, abuse. The usual reaction of the desperate man who knows he's in the wrong, and has nothing else left.
Well, you do invite it. Either you are a troll or you are particularly dense. Either way, I'm done playing until you answer the question - What "law" did Sister Kenny's treatment break?
Bye bye.

princhester

17th October 2003, 10:10 PM

I am at a loss. Could you clarify something Peter?

What Hawking said was

"The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment."

What Randi said (leaving out his aside for the moment) was:

I think Hawking could have been better understood if he had said that the reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is ... because it does not pass any simple scientific test, and in fact it fails any test spectacularly.

Then Peter, you say:

I am in total agreement with Hawking's reason for opposing astrology. I oppose astrology for the same reason. Simply because astrology has not been verified by experiment. That is the right reason for opposing it, the only one you need.

To me Peter, it seems that you are in agreement with Randi and disagreement with Hawking. Randi is saying the reason not to believe in astrology is that it does not pass experiment, which is what you are saying. Hawking is saying that the reason not to believe in astrology is because it is inconsistent with other theories that have been proven by experiment.

Randi then goes on to expand on this, pointing out that the problem with the attitude displayed by Hawkins is that many scientific breakthroughs have occurred when things that have been proven to work, despite being incompatible with then-existing theories. Randi illustrates this by saying:

Hawkins, working from his approach to astrology, would not have agreed with quantum physics, either, I believe

Which seems to me to exactly tie in with, and agree with, your position about Kelly, namely that she had inordinate difficulty getting her treatment taken seriously because despite the fact that her treatment was passing tests (ie it worked) it was incompatible with then current theories about polio. In other words, she ran into exactly the sort of attitude that Hawking displays and Randi is criticizing.

It seems to me Peter you are concentrating on what Randi explicity states to be an aside about astrology ("aside from the fact that it is based on irrational premises and is by nature incredible") and ignoring his main point.

Peter Morris

18th October 2003, 01:46 PM

sackett: Pardon me for butting in so late in this discussion (a polite name for it), but I think Master Phillip Morris or whatever he calls himself is pulling your legs. Nobody with enough smarts to hit the keys could possibly find an analogy between a long-established clinical procedure and anything supernatural. My guess is that P.M. is about 15 years old and would -like- to believe in WoooOOOoooweee! stuff but is getting too old for it. The next best fun is to tweak the easily exasperated, and just look how well he's doing.
Ajnd no-ohne that could read could think that's what I'm saying. I never said it was 'supernatural' I said that at the time it was discovered it went against the currently accepted scientific principles. That's what 'paranormal' means.

It has now become normal, and no longer paranormal.

I'd guess that my opponents are older than 15, they just act younger.

Princhester: What Randi said (leaving out his aside for the moment) was: I think Hawking could have been better understood if he had said that the reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is ... because it does not pass any simple scientific test, and in fact it fails any test spectacularly.

Typical of Princhester to cut out the most important part. How dishonest.

Randi thinks it's 'irrational' and based on his own opinion of what 'irrational' is he decides to oppose it. He would still oppose it, even if experiments confirmed astrology.

We know this because something of the sort has already happened. When early experiments appeared to confirm the Mars Effect, most of CSICOP tried to supress the information. Randi was involved in the supression. This shows that Randi hates experiment, if the results fail to meet his expectations.

Further analysis several years later contradicted the Mars Effect. This does not change the fact that Randi and others tried to supress experimental results that didn't meet his expectations.

Here's an account of the disgraceful affair written by CSICOP's cofounder: http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html

The main part of Randi's statement, which you have chosen to cut out, is that he considers astrology to be 'irrational' with the remark about experiment being an aside, and pretty much irrelevent to Randi.

Which seems to me to exactly tie in with, and agree with, your position about Kelly, namely that she had inordinate difficulty getting her treatment taken seriously because despite the fact that her treatment was passing tests (ie it worked) it was incompatible with then current theories about polio. In other words, she ran into exactly the sort of attitude that Hawking displays and Randi is criticizing.

Utterly wrong. Randi would have called it 'irrational' and 'incredible' because it went against the currently accepted theories of the time. Hawking would have based his opinion on the experimental results, but with the ability to accept that the current theories might be wrong.

Princhester, do you really believe that Randi is more informed than Hawking in scientific methods?

thaiboxerken

18th October 2003, 01:54 PM

Hold on.. you're crying that Randi and CSICOP are wrong because they proclaimed the Mars Effect was wrong......... even though, it was wrong?! Would it have been honest for them to say it is right, even though it's wrong?

You really are weird.

kookbreaker

18th October 2003, 01:57 PM

The kook has struck sTARBABY.

Typical of Princhester to cut out the most important part. How dishonest.

Randi thinks it's 'irrational' and based on his own opinion of what 'irrational' is he decides to oppose it. He would still oppose it, even if experiments confirmed astrology.

We know this because something of the sort has already happened. When early experiments appeared to confirm the Mars Effect, most of CSICOP tried to supress the information.

Oh really? And how did they manage that? All those articles in Skeptical Inquirer, including articles by both Gauquelin and Rawlins? Boy that really swept things under the rug. Hmmm, CSICOP really sucks at supressing things.

BTW, the 'early experiment' was nothing of the sort. It was a test for the validity of Gauquelin's baseline for chance.

Randi was involved in the supression. This shows that Randi hates experiment, if the results fail to meet his expectations.

And exactly what did Randi do so "supress" this?

Further analysis several years later contradicted the Mars Effect. This does not change the fact that Randi and others tried to supress experimental results that didn't meet his expectations.

Randi had nothing to do with the statstical work. He was involved in the politics afterwards, that's pretty much it.

Here's an account of the disgraceful affair written by CSICOP's cofounder: http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html

I knew sooner or later Pete-boy would pull out sTARBABY.

It ain't what you say it is. (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2098547230d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4eopcb%24dqk%40netaxs.com)

thaiboxerken

18th October 2003, 01:57 PM

Hawking would have based his opinion on the experimental results, but with the ability to accept that the current theories might be wrong.

That's strange, since Randi has often said that he really doesn't care about the theory behind the paranormal claims. The JREF challenge is to see if the claim is real, to contemplate the theories before establishing the phenomena is ludricous.

People can come up with the most scientific theories for why PSI works, or why and how mediums talk to the dead. What they haven't been able to do, however, is show that it DOES work, or that mediums DO have conversations with the dead.

Is there anyplace in the JREF challenge application that states an applicant must supply a thesis for the theory of their claim?

Peter Morris

18th October 2003, 02:20 PM

Hold on.. you're crying that Randi and CSICOP are wrong because they proclaimed the Mars Effect was wrong......... even though, it was wrong?! I'm saying that Randi & CSICOP are dishonest because they supressed the early data that agreed with the Mars effect.Would it have been honest for them to say it is right, even though it's wrong?

Rawlins wanted to publish an article saying:
(a) the Mars/dawn effect ( KZA's only "out," their sole semiplausible hope of justifying the Control Test) could not explain away Gauquelin's results; (b) there was in fact no "natural" explanation of the Mars Effect; (c) I believed that the sampling of sports champions was amiss; and (d) I didn't believe Gauquelin's claims merited serious investigation yet.

Saying that would have been honest.

But CSICOP didn't do that.

You really are weird.

So, because I want the results of experiments to be published accurately and honestly I'm wierd? :eek:

You support CSICOPS lying and twisting their results to meet their theories, yuo think that's alright? :eek:

Randi fans are a strange bunch.

thaiboxerken

18th October 2003, 02:24 PM

I'm saying that Randi & CSICOP are dishonest because they supressed the early data that agreed with the Mars effect.

Hmm.. dishonest for stating that such data is wrong, even though it was? Strange.

Rawlins wanted to publish an article saying:
(a) the Mars/dawn effect ( KZA's only "out," their sole semiplausible hope of justifying the Control Test) could not explain away Gauquelin's results; (b) there was in fact no "natural" explanation of the Mars Effect; (c) I believed that the sampling of sports champions was amiss; and (d) I didn't believe Gauquelin's claims merited serious investigation yet.

But the article was wrong.

Saying that would have been honest.

No, because the data was wrong.

But CSICOP didn't do that.

Because it was bad data.

So, because I want the results of experiments to be published accurately and honestly I'm wierd? :eek:

Yes, because you want wrong data published as being accurate.

You support CSICOPS lying and twisting their results to meet their theories, yuo think that's alright? :eek:

No, CSICOP simply pointed out that the data was wrong.

Randi fans are a strange bunch.

Skeptics don't like bad data being used as evidence. I guess we are strange. You, however, must be normal because you want bad data to be used as evidence to support your beliefs.

Peter Morris

18th October 2003, 02:34 PM

Ken, go read a dictionary, find out what 'right' and 'wrong' mean. You are clearly confused on the matter.

thaiboxerken

18th October 2003, 02:34 PM

thaiboxerken

18th October 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Ken, go read a dictionary, find out what 'right' and 'wrong' mean. You are clearly confused on the matter.

Mars effect, no such thing, therefore it is wrong to publish an article saying that it is real.

Clearly, you just have a beef with skeptics for simply not believing in your tall tales.

Peter Morris

18th October 2003, 02:43 PM

It's amazing the "evidence" that believers will cling on to. You'd rather believe that Randi and CSICOP are an evil-conspiracy than just skeptics that want evidence of the paranormal. Hey, if you want to believe in pixies, fine... but don't call the rest of us dishonest because we don't believe in pixies. You are a troll.

Its amazing the evidence that Randi fans will cling to.

You say they want evidence of the paranormal. Well, they were given evidence the Mars effect. They tried to supress it. They tried to falsify the results of their tests. They only admitted lying when they were exposed by their founder, and they kicked him out in revenge.

So, later, experiments showed that the Mars effect was false. this does not magically transform CSICOP's lies into the truth.

kookbreaker

18th October 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I'm saying that Randi & CSICOP are dishonest because they supressed the early data that agreed with the Mars effect.

What data was that? What exactly was supressed?

Rawlins wanted to publish an article saying:
(a) the Mars/dawn effect ( KZA's only "out," their sole semiplausible hope of justifying the Control Test) could not explain away Gauquelin's results; (b) there was in fact no "natural" explanation of the Mars Effect; (c) I believed that the sampling of sports champions was amiss; and (d) I didn't believe Gauquelin's claims merited serious investigation yet.

That's pretty much what he wrote in his article. ANd that's pretty much what CSICOP later wrote.

Saying [b]that would have been honest.

But CSICOP didn't do that.

CSICOP (and Rawlins, who was a member at that point) wrote several articles on the Gauquelin study. Which are you referring to?

SteveGrenard

18th October 2003, 03:35 PM

TRANSCRIPT

(Paul Willis) Day 3 in the Correx Archives Science Week special interviews with sceptic and crank buster, James Randi.

Randi helped to set up the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, or CSICOP. He was on the inside when an investigation into an astrological phenomenon called The Mars Effect came crashing down around CSICOP's ears.

So what exactly happened? Let's go back to the beginning, to the genesis of CSICOP.

(Randi) It was a meeting in a little restaurant in New York City which I had organised and called together 22 years ago now. We formally decided to announce that we were going to get a committee together to try to present a sceptical point of view about the pseudo science that was becoming very popular. All sorts of paranormal and parapsychological nonsense was being highly publicised and we thought it was time to do something about it. If we hadn't organised CSICOP I think there would have been no opposition whatsoever to the paranormal nonsense that was being promoted by the media, and I must say the media are largely responsible for the promotion of this sort of thing because it serves their purposes.

(Paul Willis) Thank you very much.

(Randi) That's understandable.

(Paul Willis) Now one of the first cases that CSICOP decided to look into was The Mars Effect. Could you describe for me what exactly The Mars Effect is?

(Randi) I could get into all the technical details, but that's boring in the extreme. The Mars Effect is an apparent effect discovered by a man named Michel Gauquelin years ago, a man who had come out against astrology very definitively in many books. But then in data searching, and looking over a mass of data, he thought that he found some effect where Mars would be apt to be in certain aspects in the sky more often than chance would dictate when people who had a military future were being born.

The subsequent samples that were taken from other data banks around the world did not prove out The Mars Effect. The original data base apparently was destroyed in Paris, and that's unfortunate because if we still had that evidence we could check it for accuracy. However The Mars Effect has not been replicated in other cultures and in other cities, and even in France. It appears to be some sort of a statistical fluke and/or a case of data searching.

(Paul Willis) CSICOP decided to have a crack at The Mars Effect as their first investigation of paranormal and astrology, but from what I've read the initial attempts were sort of botched or buggered up by CSICOP and if anything, made the whole matter worse. What exactly happened?

(Randi) I'm no longer connected with CSICOP; we had a bit of a falling out some years ago. I must say that my personal opinion, having been there at the time that all this happened, was that CSICOP didn't take it seriously enough. I think that was a big mistake. George A. Bell, the astronomer and now deceased, was a very close friend of mine and a very active member of CSICOP, and he admitted in a full public apology to the people who were behind The Mars Effect and to Michel Gauquelin himself, he apologised years later when he realised that this man was a legitimate researcher, and should have been given at least a certain amount of respect and that his data should have been examined.

George just tended to ignore it, and therefore CSICOP ignored it. But I think that CSICOP in general thought it was just so juvenile to believe such an effect, but they didn't pay enough attention to it. There's an accusation going around that CSICOP tried to cover it up. If you can call ignoring the thing and hoping it would go away a cover up, then perhaps they're right. But I don't call it a cover up at all.

(Paul Willis) And what was the final outcome?

(Randi) The final outcome of the thing was and has been up to date, that there has been no successful replication of The Mars Effect, and I think that CSICOP had that wound and justly deserved the bruises it got because it didn't take the effect seriously.

You sometimes think you're spinning you wheels. Somebody says they can fly by flapping their arms; are you going to go and investigate them? No, I would send a friend of mine around and say, 'Tell the guy to fly around the yard for you once, and if he does it, I'll come down and we'll do a thorough investigation.' This was not something where you would spin your wheels; it was a legitimate piece of research that should have been more seriously considered.

kookbreaker

18th October 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, they were given evidence the Mars effect. They tried to supress it. They tried to falsify the results of their tests. They only admitted lying when they were exposed by their founder, and they kicked him out in revenge.

Did you read the link I gave you?

Have you read Jim Lippard's chronology?

Nearly sentence you wrote up there is a mistake:

Well, they were given evidence the Mars effect.

Yes they were, it was found wanting. But the reason why was dicovered later.

They tried to supress it.

Incorrect. They published a boatload of work on the matter.

They tried to falsify the results of their tests.

A check of the baseline for chance is not a 'test' and was nothing was falsified. CSICOP members (who actually started all this before there was a CSICOP). You're just repeating FATE magazine's little added byline to Rawlins article.

They only admitted lying when they were exposed by their founder,

Rawlins was not the founder. They never admitted to any lies, I defy you to come up where they did. Becuase there were no lies, only mistakes.

and they kicked him out in revenge

Horsefeathers. Rawlins was never kicked out. He was voted out as a Fellow for a host of reasons besides any fallout from sTARBABY. Later he resigned from CSICOP on his own.

Rawlins was a loose cannon who would have been voted off the Fellows for other reasons. Would you like a list?

Peter Morris

18th October 2003, 04:03 PM

Randi) I could get into all the technical details, but that's boring in the extreme. The Mars Effect is an apparent effect discovered by a man named Michel Gauquelin years ago, a man who had come out against astrology very definitively in many books. But then in data searching, and looking over a mass of data, he thought that he found some effect where Mars would be apt to be in certain aspects in the sky more often than chance would dictate when people who had a military future were being born.

Since Randi can't tell the difference betweemn military and sports, are you going to believe anything he says?

The subsequent samples that were taken from other data banks around the world did not prove out The Mars Effect. Actually, the first samples taken by CSICOP, they hoped it would prove the so-called "Mars/dawn factor" in fact they backed up the Mars effect.

But Randi chooses not to tell the truth about this, he supresses the information.

princhester

18th October 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Typical of Princhester to cut out the most important part. How dishonest.

Contemptible. You accuse others of acting like 15 year olds but when I do the courtesy of specifically stating that I am leaving out a subclause in a quote, and then later quote and deal with that very subclause, you accuse me of dishonesty.

The main part of Randi's statement, which you have chosen to cut out, is that he considers astrology to be 'irrational' with the remark about experiment being an aside, and pretty much irrelevent to Randi.

So let me get this straight. According to you, Randi's comments about irrationality etc are the main part of his statement, and the remark about experiment being an aside. Let's just look at that quote again, shall we (I've emphasised part of the statement for you Peter).

I think Hawking could have been better understood if he had said that the reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is, aside from the fact that it is based on irrational premises and is by nature incredible, because it does not pass any simple scientific test, and in fact it fails any test spectacularly.

So to parse that sentence, we have the beginning of the sentence, a comma, the word "aside" as the introduction to a subclause about irrationality etc, then a comma, then a continuation of the sentence. Now I don't know about you Peter but on my understanding, that makes the bit between the commas an aside, and the rest of the sentence the main point. You have taken what Randi specifically states to have been an aside, and turned that on its head and said that it is Randi's main point.

Utterly wrong. Randi would have called it 'irrational' and 'incredible' because it went against the currently accepted theories of the time. Hawking would have based his opinion on the experimental results, but with the ability to accept that the current theories might be wrong.

And you base this comment on a column of Randi's in which Randi says that astrology is not believed by scientists because it does not pass tests, and in which Randi quotes Hawking as saying astrology is not believed because it does not fit with other proven theories?

Princhester, do you really believe that Randi is more informed than Hawking in scientific methods?

I don't give a damn about that. You see, I am not despite what you say, a Randi fan. I read what he says. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.

You on the other hand are clearly a Randi hater, and an unquestioning Hawking fan. This is shown by the fact that you read what Randi says, clearly agree with it, but make a post in which you castigate Randi for what is explicitly stated to be an aside, while ignoring his main point (which you would actually agree with, if you weren't so blinded by your hatred). And then you continue to agree with Hawking's comment, even though it goes against your stated position in this and other threads, in that it suggests a close mindedness to testing of new phenomena.

You love to accuse everyone who does not share your hatred of Randi of being a "Randi fan" ie someone you consider to be a blind follower. But the only person around here pursing an argument from authority is you, regarding Hawking.

In fact, the intellectual solidity of your position is made clearest by you, yourself when you say, quite simply:

Randi bad Hawking good

Not so much 15 year old as 2 year old.