A Skeptical Look At James Randi By Michael Prescott

Jonquill · 3rd July 2008, 01:36 AM

Hi Everybody, as you can see I am new here.

I've been hanging out at the paranormal section of Yahoo Answers where as usual the skeptics are supporting the Randi challenge and the Believers are saying it is rubbish.

Anyway someone posted a link to Michael Prescott and the article he has written 'A Skeptical Look At James Randi' which is basically saying that the book Randi wrote 'Flim-Flam' is full of errors.

As this is my first post it won't let me post the url but it is easy to find with google.

Is Michael Prescott right? Or can I argue that he doesn't know what he is talking about?

Thanks.

UnrepentantSinner · 3rd July 2008, 02:19 AM

There's a link to Prescott's site in the "criticisms" section of Randi's Wiki page.

(I can post links but don't like to hit websites I don't know about

)

H3LL · 3rd July 2008, 02:46 AM

In among the ad homs, expressions of opinion and anecdote from various people, Prescott is probably right in his criticisms of Randi.

Who can tell and who cares?

On a quick look, the one and only bit of information that is reliable and can be independently confirmed in the entire article seems to be:

Quote:

Targ and Puthoff's article "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," which appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal Nature,

Who gives a stuff about any of the protagonists "scientific credentials"? Totally irrelevant.

Lots of fancy rhetoric but where is the reliable evidence for Targ & Puthoff's claims?

Tip: Don't waste time looking.

.

blauregen · 3rd July 2008, 02:57 AM

For the Prescott-criticism, here it is including Randi's answer:

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

For a few other negative opinions about Randi and the MDC look here:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...tml#JamesRandi

For a rebuttal of a few major points of criticism from Randi, you can look here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html

Whether to take a side, and if yes which one?....... That's your decision.

H3LL · 3rd July 2008, 03:06 AM

Prescott also has a link to Randi's reply to his article. I'm assuming it is an accurate reproduction as he stated:

Quote:

In a message dated September 24, 2003, James Randi responds:
Briefly....

I set out here to rebut the accusation by Michael Prescott, at http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm. I spent some two hours gathering the material, made brief notes, and then realized that I was wasting far too much time picking off fleas. Here are the notes I prepared:
Referring to the Prescott document: No, I did not specify the scientific credentials of Targ and Puthoff. They were laser scientists, which does not serve as any validation of their scientific – or other – ability to witness these matters.

When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became "interested in parapsychology" as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff.

Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, "As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means." He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! "There were unusual excursions of the data recorder," he told me – again! – "but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations." Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had "selective memory" of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions.

Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the "signed statement" that Rogo says he made.

Prescott says I "never set foot inside the SRI facility"? Look at Flim-Flam, pages 140-141 and see the drawings I made at SRI with Leon Otis. And I have a photograph of myself looking through the same "peep-hole" that Geller used. It was taken by Leon. I spent an entire afternoon there.
The "scientist who was there," as quoted by Prescott, was Leon Otis.

At this point, I have no time to pursue this tirade by Prescott, further. The rest of it would collapse, as above, under my point-for-point rebuttal.

In closing, I quote Prescott: "There is no way for me to verify Puthoff's statement that he tape-recorded Randi's concession of defeat 'on all the points.'" Oh yes there is, Prescott. Contact Puthoff and ask for a copy of that tape-recording. Hal Puthoff is still alive, and he's a liar. No such conversation ever took place, I did not make such a statement, and Puthoff has no evidence to support his outright lie, because there is none.
James Randi

H3LL · 3rd July 2008, 03:12 AM

Randi quoting from the blauregen link:

Quote:

"A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."

.

Jonquill · 3rd July 2008, 03:21 AM

Thanks for the answers and for putting the links up.

More or less one person's word against the other's then.

I've got a bit side tracked reading the rest of that skepticalinvestigations site, they seem very skeptical about skeptics!

Aepervius · 3rd July 2008, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Jonquill

More or less one person's word against the other's then.

Not quite, as quoted above, if James Randi is right, some of the Prescott allegation are easily proven false, or randi proved false. So it ain't fully the word of somebody against another person's word.

Originally Posted by Jonquill

I've got a bit side tracked reading the rest of that skepticalinvestigations site, they seem very skeptical about skeptics!

IIRC The only thing they are skeptical of, are the skeptic themselves. If I remember them well, they are not skeptical of much anything else.

EarlFaulk · 3rd July 2008, 04:04 AM

I actually used that article in a paper I decided to make about Randi's career in English Comp 2. I thought the argument Prescott presented was full of holes

UnrepentantSinner · 3rd July 2008, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by Jonquill

I've got a bit side tracked reading the rest of that skepticalinvestigations site, they seem very skeptical about skeptics!

A classic tactic of believers and deniers is to claim that they are the real skeptics or that they are skeptical of skepticism or variations thereof.

Jonquill · 3rd July 2008, 04:22 AM

Okay Aepervius, you are right - but not easily proved from the comfort of my computer chair.

I looked on wiki for Harold Puthoff, Prescott suggests that being a laser scientist gives him credibility (he did patent some lasers according to wiki) but also "Puthoff joined the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached the top OT VII level by 1971.... claiming to have achieved "remote viewing" abilities."

So even men that invent lasers have some unusual ideas.

Soapy Sam · 3rd July 2008, 04:39 AM

Critical / sceptical thinking can be a single issue operation for some people. Sceptics try to apply it across the board- I doubt anyone succeeds completely. I know a guy who is a confirmed UFOlogist, who thinks believers in ghosts are very silly. People are wierd. Robots are wired. Wierd is better, on balance.

tapman · 3rd July 2008, 05:08 AM

If someone were really telling the truth, it seems it would be that everyone has their own truth. Further they can present evidence that supports their truth, as well as evidence that falsifies the other persons truth. I think the only truth to any of this is that we believe what want, and no one or no evidence will move us away from our beliefs.

Apathia · 3rd July 2008, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by tapman

If someone were really telling the truth, it seems it would be that everyone has their own truth. Further they can present evidence that supports their truth, as well as evidence that falsifies the other persons truth. I think the only truth to any of this is that we believe what want, and no one or no evidence will move us away from our beliefs.

Hi Tapman, Welcome to the JREF.
Ask around some more. You'll find people like myself who had to eat crow when they realized the facts did not support their cherished beliefs.
It happens that some people (sadly a minority) do change their minds (even in ways they don't prefer) when the facts are put on the table.
We Humans may be toast afterall, but we don't always fall jam side down.

luchog · 3rd July 2008, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

People are wierd. Robots are wired. Wierd is better, on balance.

Speak for yourself, meatsack.

Ragnarok · 3rd July 2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by H3LL

Randi quoting from the blauregen link:

.

Cite?

tiger · 3rd July 2008, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Jonquill

Hi Everybody, as you can see I am new here.

I've been hanging out at the paranormal section of Yahoo Answers where as usual the skeptics are supporting the Randi challenge and the Believers are saying it is rubbish.

Anyway someone posted a link to Michael Prescott and the article he has written 'A Skeptical Look At James Randi' which is basically saying that the book Randi wrote 'Flim-Flam' is full of errors.

As this is my first post it won't let me post the url but it is easy to find with google.

Is Michael Prescott right? Or can I argue that he doesn't know what he is talking about?

Thanks.

You can argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about! But I will admit James does have his sarcastic moments, but don't we all. He seems to take exception to the 2 alleged scientists credentials not being given credice, well why would that matter! We have these PYSCHICS, MEDUIMS, ETC ETC all out there claiming they got PHD'S at Universities that have no record of them ever being there. He seems to fail to mention that point which is understandible since he changed sides. But yes I do believe Randi does have a bit where he looks down his nose at people. That video of him throwing papers at the guy in the audience I thought was pretty rude and something he needed to apoligize for but he didn't!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxvPJFv6X94

tapman · 4th July 2008, 05:56 AM

Randi get owned a lot, and ownes others as well. Isn't this a balanced world.

Alice Shortcake · 4th July 2008, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by tapman

Randi get owned a lot...

"A lot"? I don't think so.

roseglass · 4th July 2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

If someone were really telling the truth, it seems it would be that everyone has their own truth. Further they can present evidence that supports their truth, as well as evidence that falsifies the other persons truth. I think the only truth to any of this is that we believe what want, and no one or no evidence will move us away from our beliefs.

I wanted to weigh in on this statement. While a person can only speak truthfully from a perspective that they truly know for themselves, it doesn't make testable truths relative. In short, what is being stated above is "the truth is relative". This line of rationale is popularly used amongst gurus when addressing the 'hang ups' of their students in grasping esoteric concepts. The following ideas that normally come after 'the truth is relative' argument are "well, it all doesn't matter anyway, does it?" and "each person has their own truth." That can be a dangerous road for the traveler to follow.

Fortunately, one of the great strengths of modern Western thinking isn't that the truth is relative at all, but verifiable through rigorous science in it's most pure faucet. The reason we do have great technological advances that eventually spread to the rest of the participating world is because of this ability to think objectively about our reality and leaving the subjective thought to the individual and religion.

No, I don't think Mr. Randi is above scrutiny and it's good to be skeptical about what even he says, which is something he advises people to do when he asks folks to do; research, reason & think. However, opinions aren't to be confused with facts - be those facts either agreed upon by repeatable experience or tested. That said, while his approach to the paranormal as a whole could be considered overly critical by some, it's been proved invaluable to exposing obvious fraud in the pay to play psychic community.

Thanks for sharing the links folks, still reading both the article and the rebuttal.

roseglass · 4th July 2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Cite?

From the SWIFT Newsletter dated September 19th, 2003;

"I'll apply this old English proverb: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."" (James Randi in reference to a Mr. Keen)

Ragnarok · 4th July 2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by roseglass

From the SWIFT Newsletter dated September 19th, 2003;

"I'll apply this old English proverb: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."" (James Randi in reference to a Mr. Keen)

I had no doubt it was actually said. I wanted a cite that verified his statement as anything more than complete waffle. This is after all, a site that deals with facts, is it not?

roseglass · 4th July 2008, 04:03 PM

Ah, no worries there - I was just noticing that no one had given you the quote, I was looking for it too and found it after reading the article. Was only posting it for your convenience too.

Moochie · 5th July 2008, 11:31 AM

It's pretty obvious to me that Prescott has found a way to tap into the "woo economy," that is to say, taking a contrary stance to a notable skeptic is guaranteed to bring you to the attention of believers, who'll probably rush out and buy his books.

M.

rjh01 · 5th July 2008, 03:53 PM

Just added a couple of tags. The threads tagged with michael prescott make interesting reading.

calebprime · 5th July 2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Apathia

Hi Tapman, Welcome to the JREF.
Ask around some more. You'll find people like myself who had to eat crow when they realized the facts did not support their cherished beliefs.
It happens that some people (sadly a minority) do change their minds (even in ways they don't prefer) when the facts are put on the table.
We Humans may be toast afterall, but we don't always fall jam side down.

btw, thank you for your contribution to the doronadshmi infinite collection thread.

I don't understand a word of it, but I keep reading...

Ragnarok · 7th July 2008, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by roseglass

Ah, no worries there - I was just noticing that no one had given you the quote, I was looking for it too and found it after reading the article. Was only posting it for your convenience too.

I do apologise Roseglass. How could I mistake you for that neer-do-well, H3LL?

Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen!

roseglass · 8th July 2008, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I do apologise Roseglass. How could I mistake you for that neer-do-well, H3LL?

Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen!

No problem, hope you enjoyed the article.

quixotecoyote · 8th July 2008, 05:01 PM

What kinds of morons can't tell the difference between a figure of speech and a factual claim?

Let's find out.

Jeff Corey · 8th July 2008, 07:18 PM

It could be a trope. Like, "They are all real parapsychologists".

Cuddles · 9th July 2008, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen!

You want someone to provide evidence for a proverb? That's one of the weirdest requests I've seen in a long time.

Bob Klase · 9th July 2008, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen!

I'd also like to see some data that supports a stitch in time saving nine.

HasKey · 9th July 2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by roseglass

...I'll apply this old English proverb: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."" ...

I think I dated her.

Cuddles · 10th July 2008, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

I'd also like to see some data that supports a stitch in time saving nine.

I'm afraid I can't help there. However, after careful experimentation I have determined that an apple a day will in fact keep the doctor away. As long as you throw it hard enough.

Niobe · 10th July 2008, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

What kinds of morons can't tell the difference between a figure of speech and a factual claim?

Bible thumpers?

3rd July 2008, 01:36 AM	#1
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393	A Skeptical Look At James Randi By Michael Prescott Hi Everybody, as you can see I am new here. I've been hanging out at the paranormal section of Yahoo Answers where as usual the skeptics are supporting the Randi challenge and the Believers are saying it is rubbish. Anyway someone posted a link to Michael Prescott and the article he has written 'A Skeptical Look At James Randi' which is basically saying that the book Randi wrote 'Flim-Flam' is full of errors. As this is my first post it won't let me post the url but it is easy to find with google. Is Michael Prescott right? Or can I argue that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Thanks.
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393

3rd July 2008, 02:19 AM	#2
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,362	There's a link to Prescott's site in the "criticisms" section of Randi's Wiki page. (I can post links but don't like to hit websites I don't know about )
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

3rd July 2008, 02:46 AM	#3
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	In among the ad homs, expressions of opinion and anecdote from various people, Prescott is probably right in his criticisms of Randi. Who can tell and who cares? On a quick look, the one and only bit of information that is reliable and can be independently confirmed in the entire article seems to be: Quote: Targ and Puthoff's article "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," which appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal Nature, Who gives a stuff about any of the protagonists "scientific credentials"? Totally irrelevant. Lots of fancy rhetoric but where is the reliable evidence for Targ & Puthoff's claims? Tip: Don't waste time looking. .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1. Last edited by H3LL; 3rd July 2008 at 03:14 AM.

3rd July 2008, 03:06 AM	#5
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Prescott also has a link to Randi's reply to his article. I'm assuming it is an accurate reproduction as he stated: Quote: In a message dated September 24, 2003, James Randi responds: Briefly.... I set out here to rebut the accusation by Michael Prescott, at http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm. I spent some two hours gathering the material, made brief notes, and then realized that I was wasting far too much time picking off fleas. Here are the notes I prepared: Referring to the Prescott document: No, I did not specify the scientific credentials of Targ and Puthoff. They were laser scientists, which does not serve as any validation of their scientific – or other – ability to witness these matters. When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became "interested in parapsychology" as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff. Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, "As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means." He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! "There were unusual excursions of the data recorder," he told me – again! – "but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations." Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had "selective memory" of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions. Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the "signed statement" that Rogo says he made. Prescott says I "never set foot inside the SRI facility"? Look at Flim-Flam, pages 140-141 and see the drawings I made at SRI with Leon Otis. And I have a photograph of myself looking through the same "peep-hole" that Geller used. It was taken by Leon. I spent an entire afternoon there. The "scientist who was there," as quoted by Prescott, was Leon Otis. At this point, I have no time to pursue this tirade by Prescott, further. The rest of it would collapse, as above, under my point-for-point rebuttal. In closing, I quote Prescott: "There is no way for me to verify Puthoff's statement that he tape-recorded Randi's concession of defeat 'on all the points.'" Oh yes there is, Prescott. Contact Puthoff and ask for a copy of that tape-recording. Hal Puthoff is still alive, and he's a liar. No such conversation ever took place, I did not make such a statement, and Puthoff has no evidence to support his outright lie, because there is none. James Randi
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

3rd July 2008, 03:12 AM	#6
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Randi quoting from the blauregen link: Quote: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years." .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

3rd July 2008, 02:57 AM	#4
blauregen Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 299	For the Prescott-criticism, here it is including Randi's answer: http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm For a few other negative opinions about Randi and the MDC look here: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...tml#JamesRandi For a rebuttal of a few major points of criticism from Randi, you can look here: http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html Whether to take a side, and if yes which one?....... That's your decision.

3rd July 2008, 03:21 AM	#7
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393	Thanks for the answers and for putting the links up. More or less one person's word against the other's then. I've got a bit side tracked reading the rest of that skepticalinvestigations site, they seem very skeptical about skeptics!
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393

3rd July 2008, 03:44 AM	#8
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,765	Originally Posted by Jonquill More or less one person's word against the other's then. Not quite, as quoted above, if James Randi is right, some of the Prescott allegation are easily proven false, or randi proved false. So it ain't fully the word of somebody against another person's word. Originally Posted by Jonquill I've got a bit side tracked reading the rest of that skepticalinvestigations site, they seem very skeptical about skeptics! IIRC The only thing they are skeptical of, are the skeptic themselves. If I remember them well, they are not skeptical of much anything else.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

3rd July 2008, 04:04 AM	#9
EarlFaulk Student Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 31	I actually used that article in a paper I decided to make about Randi's career in English Comp 2. I thought the argument Prescott presented was full of holes
EarlFaulk Student Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 31

3rd July 2008, 04:09 AM	#10
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,362	Originally Posted by Jonquill I've got a bit side tracked reading the rest of that skepticalinvestigations site, they seem very skeptical about skeptics! A classic tactic of believers and deniers is to claim that they are the real skeptics or that they are skeptical of skepticism or variations thereof.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

3rd July 2008, 04:22 AM	#11
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393	Okay Aepervius, you are right - but not easily proved from the comfort of my computer chair. I looked on wiki for Harold Puthoff, Prescott suggests that being a laser scientist gives him credibility (he did patent some lasers according to wiki) but also "Puthoff joined the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached the top OT VII level by 1971.... claiming to have achieved "remote viewing" abilities." So even men that invent lasers have some unusual ideas.
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393

3rd July 2008, 04:39 AM	#12
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Critical / sceptical thinking can be a single issue operation for some people. Sceptics try to apply it across the board- I doubt anyone succeeds completely. I know a guy who is a confirmed UFOlogist, who thinks believers in ghosts are very silly. People are wierd. Robots are wired. Wierd is better, on balance.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

3rd July 2008, 05:08 AM	#13
tapman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 125	THe truth is out there If someone were really telling the truth, it seems it would be that everyone has their own truth. Further they can present evidence that supports their truth, as well as evidence that falsifies the other persons truth. I think the only truth to any of this is that we believe what want, and no one or no evidence will move us away from our beliefs.
tapman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 125

3rd July 2008, 06:30 AM	#14
Apathia Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Tempe, AZ Posts: 2,937	Originally Posted by tapman If someone were really telling the truth, it seems it would be that everyone has their own truth. Further they can present evidence that supports their truth, as well as evidence that falsifies the other persons truth. I think the only truth to any of this is that we believe what want, and no one or no evidence will move us away from our beliefs. Hi Tapman, Welcome to the JREF. Ask around some more. You'll find people like myself who had to eat crow when they realized the facts did not support their cherished beliefs. It happens that some people (sadly a minority) do change their minds (even in ways they don't prefer) when the facts are put on the table. We Humans may be toast afterall, but we don't always fall jam side down.
	__________________ "At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown

3rd July 2008, 03:22 PM	#15
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 7,958	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam People are wierd. Robots are wired. Wierd is better, on balance. Speak for yourself, meatsack.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

3rd July 2008, 04:00 PM	#16
Ragnarok Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 492	Originally Posted by H3LL Randi quoting from the blauregen link: . Cite?
Ragnarok Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 492

3rd July 2008, 04:04 PM	#17
tiger Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Nebraska Posts: 348	Originally Posted by Jonquill Hi Everybody, as you can see I am new here. I've been hanging out at the paranormal section of Yahoo Answers where as usual the skeptics are supporting the Randi challenge and the Believers are saying it is rubbish. Anyway someone posted a link to Michael Prescott and the article he has written 'A Skeptical Look At James Randi' which is basically saying that the book Randi wrote 'Flim-Flam' is full of errors. As this is my first post it won't let me post the url but it is easy to find with google. Is Michael Prescott right? Or can I argue that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Thanks. You can argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about! But I will admit James does have his sarcastic moments, but don't we all. He seems to take exception to the 2 alleged scientists credentials not being given credice, well why would that matter! We have these PYSCHICS, MEDUIMS, ETC ETC all out there claiming they got PHD'S at Universities that have no record of them ever being there. He seems to fail to mention that point which is understandible since he changed sides. But yes I do believe Randi does have a bit where he looks down his nose at people. That video of him throwing papers at the guy in the audience I thought was pretty rude and something he needed to apoligize for but he didn't! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxvPJFv6X94
	Last edited by tiger; 3rd July 2008 at 04:23 PM.

4th July 2008, 05:56 AM	#18
tapman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 125	Randi get owned a lot, and ownes others as well. Isn't this a balanced world.
tapman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 125

4th July 2008, 06:03 AM	#19
Alice Shortcake Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: York, England Posts: 750	Originally Posted by tapman Randi get owned a lot... "A lot"? I don't think so.
	__________________ Proud member of the Debunkly Skerricks Pack

4th July 2008, 01:16 PM	#20
roseglass Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Ashevegas, NC Posts: 146	Quote: If someone were really telling the truth, it seems it would be that everyone has their own truth. Further they can present evidence that supports their truth, as well as evidence that falsifies the other persons truth. I think the only truth to any of this is that we believe what want, and no one or no evidence will move us away from our beliefs. I wanted to weigh in on this statement. While a person can only speak truthfully from a perspective that they truly know for themselves, it doesn't make testable truths relative. In short, what is being stated above is "the truth is relative". This line of rationale is popularly used amongst gurus when addressing the 'hang ups' of their students in grasping esoteric concepts. The following ideas that normally come after 'the truth is relative' argument are "well, it all doesn't matter anyway, does it?" and "each person has their own truth." That can be a dangerous road for the traveler to follow. Fortunately, one of the great strengths of modern Western thinking isn't that the truth is relative at all, but verifiable through rigorous science in it's most pure faucet. The reason we do have great technological advances that eventually spread to the rest of the participating world is because of this ability to think objectively about our reality and leaving the subjective thought to the individual and religion. No, I don't think Mr. Randi is above scrutiny and it's good to be skeptical about what even he says, which is something he advises people to do when he asks folks to do; research, reason & think. However, opinions aren't to be confused with facts - be those facts either agreed upon by repeatable experience or tested. That said, while his approach to the paranormal as a whole could be considered overly critical by some, it's been proved invaluable to exposing obvious fraud in the pay to play psychic community. Thanks for sharing the links folks, still reading both the article and the rebuttal.

4th July 2008, 02:28 PM	#21
roseglass Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Ashevegas, NC Posts: 146	Quote Cite Originally Posted by Ragnarok Cite? From the SWIFT Newsletter dated September 19th, 2003; "I'll apply this old English proverb: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."" (James Randi in reference to a Mr. Keen)

4th July 2008, 03:58 PM	#22
Ragnarok Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 492	Originally Posted by roseglass From the SWIFT Newsletter dated September 19th, 2003; "I'll apply this old English proverb: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."" (James Randi in reference to a Mr. Keen) I had no doubt it was actually said. I wanted a cite that verified his statement as anything more than complete waffle. This is after all, a site that deals with facts, is it not?
Ragnarok Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 492

4th July 2008, 04:03 PM	#23
roseglass Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Ashevegas, NC Posts: 146	Ah, no worries there - I was just noticing that no one had given you the quote, I was looking for it too and found it after reading the article. Was only posting it for your convenience too.

5th July 2008, 11:31 AM	#24
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	It's pretty obvious to me that Prescott has found a way to tap into the "woo economy," that is to say, taking a contrary stance to a notable skeptic is guaranteed to bring you to the attention of believers, who'll probably rush out and buy his books. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	__________________

5th July 2008, 03:53 PM	#25
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,198	Just added a couple of tags. The threads tagged with michael prescott make interesting reading.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

5th July 2008, 03:58 PM	#26
calebprime Somewhat Elitist Parasite Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,760	Originally Posted by Apathia Hi Tapman, Welcome to the JREF. Ask around some more. You'll find people like myself who had to eat crow when they realized the facts did not support their cherished beliefs. It happens that some people (sadly a minority) do change their minds (even in ways they don't prefer) when the facts are put on the table. We Humans may be toast afterall, but we don't always fall jam side down. btw, thank you for your contribution to the doronadshmi infinite collection thread. I don't understand a word of it, but I keep reading...
	__________________ Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.

7th July 2008, 05:12 AM	#27
Ragnarok Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 492	Originally Posted by roseglass Ah, no worries there - I was just noticing that no one had given you the quote, I was looking for it too and found it after reading the article. Was only posting it for your convenience too. I do apologise Roseglass. How could I mistake you for that neer-do-well, H3LL? Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen!
Ragnarok Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 492

8th July 2008, 03:13 PM	#28
roseglass Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Ashevegas, NC Posts: 146	Originally Posted by Ragnarok I do apologise Roseglass. How could I mistake you for that neer-do-well, H3LL? Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen! No problem, hope you enjoyed the article.

8th July 2008, 05:01 PM	#29
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	What kinds of morons can't tell the difference between a figure of speech and a factual claim? Let's find out.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

8th July 2008, 07:18 PM	#30
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,795	It could be a trope. Like, "They are all real parapsychologists".
	Last edited by Jeff Corey; 8th July 2008 at 07:21 PM.

9th July 2008, 05:35 AM	#31
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,597	Originally Posted by Ragnarok Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen! You want someone to provide evidence for a proverb? That's one of the weirdest requests I've seen in a long time.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

9th July 2008, 09:11 AM	#32
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Ragnarok Now if he wants to explain what factual basis Randi used for these words of wisdom, I'll be only too happy to listen! I'd also like to see some data that supports a stitch in time saving nine.

9th July 2008, 10:06 AM	#33
HasKey Student Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 46	Originally Posted by roseglass ...I'll apply this old English proverb: "A fool can ask more questions in one hour than seven wise men can answer in seven years."" ... I think I dated her.
HasKey Student Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 46

10th July 2008, 05:11 AM	#34
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,597	Originally Posted by Bob Klase I'd also like to see some data that supports a stitch in time saving nine. I'm afraid I can't help there. However, after careful experimentation I have determined that an apple a day will in fact keep the doctor away. As long as you throw it hard enough.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

10th July 2008, 05:58 AM	#35
Niobe Sons of Dis Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 289	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote What kinds of morons can't tell the difference between a figure of speech and a factual claim? Bible thumpers?
Niobe Sons of Dis Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 289	__________________ Youtube skeptics