It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

James Randi is an idiot!!

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Plus, saying that ESP needs to function all the time would exclude anomalous abilities that can predict the future with 99.9%
accuracy, or with extreme statistical significance.

100% accuracy is not a reasonable standard, considering there's not much if anything that can be known with 100% precision. Only pseudo-skeptics bent on sustaining their metaphysical views would insist otherwise.


The folks posting in this thread seem to know more about James Randi than I do, so I'm not an expert on Randi.

However I do know something about statistics. I believe Randi's threshold for proving a psychic event did not occur by random chance is that the odds of that happening need to be 1 in a million or less.

Making the odds of guessing correctly less than 1 in million doesn't require 100% accuracy. Look at an example: let's say I tell Randi I have a psychic ability that I can influence a coin toss using psychokinesis such that there will be more heads than by just random chance alone. Now if I go to Randi and propose a series of 4 coin tosses, (maybe tossed by a machine to take the human variability out of it) and if the result is 3 heads out of 4, that's not a convincing display of psychokinesis. People can get 3 out of 4 heads by just random chance. What are the odds? Try this calculator to find out:

faculty.vassar.edu...

Enter n=4 k=3 p=0.5 and q=0.5 and press calculate

The odds of getting this 75% accurate result are 25% or about one in four. This means one out of every four people that tried this would win the million if he accepted this level of probability, and they would have absolutely no abilities at all! This would happen just due to random chance. How do we get around this? Increase the number of trials.

What are the odds of getting 15 out of 20 heads by chance?

using the calculator the same way, we find that getting 15 or more heads out of 20 coin tosses by random chance is about 2%. OK that's pretty good to impress your friends but not enough to meet the one in a million odds Randi requires. Every 50th person would win the million if this were the standard, just by random chance and no ability.

Getting 60 or more out of 80 is a probability of 4.3 out of a million. Still not good enough for Randi. This means if a million people came to Randi to do this coin toss test, and he accepted these odds, 4 of them would claim the money with no abilities whatsoever, that would happen just by random chance!

Getting 75 or more out of 100 just by random chance would finally meet the less than 1 in a million odds. Now let's say that instead of psychokinesis, my ability was mind reading another person looking at the cards and guessing if they looked at a black or a white card, or something that had a 50% chance of success per trial.

In this case again I should not have to get every card right to beat Randi's 1 in a million odds, I could be right only 75% of the time and if we did enough trials, the odds of that would be less than 1 in a million. Now whether Randi would actually agree to this I don't know. He probably wouldn't for me because my name isn't Uri Geller, I think he was really targeting celebrities with famous abilities with his million dollar challenge, and he doesn't want to mess with unknowns like me who have no reputation to destroy. But that's just an impression I have from the little research I've done on the subject.

I did feel it important though to point out that 100% accuracy should not be required for psychic ability. A 75% success rate would be plenty good on such a mind reading experiment as long as enough trials were conducted to make the odds of the 75% success rate by random chance less than one in a million per Randi's requirement.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
What could you possibly like about James Randi. He is one of my most despised people on the planet. The man is a fraud and a con artist.

And what is this crap about "Most of the time he's right". James Randi has hardly ever been right. He's already been caught out when he was part of CSCIOP deliberately hiding data about a paranormal investigation into the Mars Effect that would have proven the skeptics wrong. Instead CSICOP hid the evidence and allowed the scientific community to believe the skeptics were right.

Even when Randi was questioned about it... he said "We just hoped it would go away and nobody would notice". What a disgraceful excuse for a human.


Here we go again. Yet another person to hop in and make accusations without backing them up. Perhaps you can make a nice chart showing how Randi was wrong more times than not, with adequate data to back up such analysis. As far as the whole Mars Effect debacle you can read up for yourself. Other researchers have even looked into the Mars Effect and cannot reproduce Gauquelin's results. If you want to believe in astrology then please by all means do so but to attempt to validate it using such bad science is a step too far for more rational thinkers.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Baklava
 


You bring up some really great points! Thank you



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Bravo, Arbitrageur! Fantastic explanation



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by Total Package
What could you possibly like about James Randi. He is one of my most despised people on the planet. The man is a fraud and a con artist.

And what is this crap about "Most of the time he's right". James Randi has hardly ever been right. He's already been caught out when he was part of CSCIOP deliberately hiding data about a paranormal investigation into the Mars Effect that would have proven the skeptics wrong. Instead CSICOP hid the evidence and allowed the scientific community to believe the skeptics were right.

Even when Randi was questioned about it... he said "We just hoped it would go away and nobody would notice". What a disgraceful excuse for a human.


Here we go again. Yet another person to hop in and make accusations without backing them up. Perhaps you can make a nice chart showing how Randi was wrong more times than not, with adequate data to back up such analysis. As far as the whole Mars Effect debacle you can read up for yourself. Other researchers have even looked into the Mars Effect and cannot reproduce Gauquelin's results. If you want to believe in astrology then please by all means do so but to attempt to validate it using such bad science is a step too far for more rational thinkers.


Perhaps this will help you.

cura.free.fr...

Is that enough "backing up" for my "accusations".

Let me guess... you think psychics are all bunk because they can't urinate in a test tube and prove to you via science that they are real? You're just another one of the closed minded scientific community.... that are too busy looking after their own ass.

Here is another video for you.... called Science and the Taboo of PSI. Rather scathing of your "scientific community" you seem to so much adore.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I was unfamiliar with the Mars Effect hypothesis until you mentioned, but I will assume this is the case you're referring to. I couldn't find the Randi quote you referenced, but I did find this interview which seems contrary to your entire claim against James Randi.



(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.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
Perhaps this will help you.

cura.free.fr...

Is that enough "backing up" for my "accusations".

Let me guess... you think psychics are all bunk because they can't urinate in a test tube and prove to you via science that they are real? You're just another one of the closed minded scientific community.... that are too busy looking after their own ass.

Here is another video for you.... called Science and the Taboo of PSI. Rather scathing of your "scientific community" you seem to so much adore.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Total Package]


I could have used my powers of deduction to know you would bring up the Rawlins side of the story. I should probably say psychic powers so I could get a bit more respect out of you. There are numerous links for the CSICOP side and yes, Rawlins had issues with the original test methodology. It's all documented on both even for the intra-CSICOP side. Both sides never got anywhere, you think we will be able to? As I've stated after that debacle, other groups have tried to reproduce the results that Gauquelin produced and have yet to verify them. You would have thought will all the time that has passed someone would prove Gauquelin right.

Thanks for trying to build a straw man for me but allow me to correct you. I do not believe that all paranormal phenomenon is bunk as you say. I do believe that those that claim to have such powers should make themselves available for scientific scrutiny. The hope is to prove not disprove. You also resort to the typical straw man attacks on science and scientists by calling them close-minded, then again I guess it's an easier way out than admitting all the great things science has afforded us.

I've watched that video before and it's quite amazing. I admit there is a taboo in the scientific community for the paranormal but perhaps it's a bit understandable when you look at how many frauds have attempted to misuse science for their own gains. Once again, I believe that Randi and other skeptical organizations aid with reducing the signal to noise ratio. Isn't this a better thing for those that wish to promote the paranormal? Less frauds and more serious cases that can be examined. I'm sure you will disagree. Good luck with your paint by the numbers/cookie cutter routine.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
FWIW, drawing upon my personal observations, nonphysical beings operate, function and exist via nonphysical mechanisms. The less physical they are; the higher up in frequency they are, the more their lack of mass is compensated for by emotion. They construct what they need by visualization and desire as we build things here with our hands. Endeavoring to squeeze the round peg of thought-driven energy into the limited confines of mortal "science's" square hole is laughable.

There are a whole host of elements that need to be added to the periodic table in order for what typically passes for "science" to be able to add 2+2. Don't fret however, because we have some pretty smart people walking around down here. The vibrancy of life that exists just a shade beyond your physical vision is not unknown nor unrecognized nor uncategorized, it is simply unpublicized... and for your own good.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Thanks for trying to build a straw man for me but allow me to correct you.


Wrong fallacy.


I do not believe that all paranormal phenomenon is bunk as you say.


I don't either, but I think we are miles and miles away from research as we have not observed enough to form a hypothesis, nor do we have tools to measure, or a statistical precedence.

Hence, I believe what you refer to as "the paranormal" cannot be proven or dis-proven at the moment.



I do believe that those that claim to have such powers should make themselves available for scientific scrutiny.


Several universities have ongoing studies that people should participate in, not present themselves to a circus of scrutiny by people unqualified to evaluate--of course, given the nature, very few people would be qualified to evaluate it.


You also resort to the typical straw man attacks


Wrong fallacy


on science and scientists


Randi is not a scientist, nor are many of the members of the organization. I've yet to hear anyone call Carl Sagan an ignorant rube. They called James Randi an "idiot".


by calling them close-minded, then again I guess it's an easier way out than admitting all the great things science has afforded us.


You are also succumbing to fallacy.


I admit there is a taboo in the scientific community for the paranormal


No, there isn't...


but perhaps it's a bit understandable when you look at how many frauds have attempted to misuse science for their own gains.


*sigh*



Once again, I believe that Randi and other skeptical organizations aid with reducing the signal to noise ratio.


I think they add to it.


Isn't this a better thing for those that wish to promote the paranormal?


Impartial scientific studies run by institutions like JHU do just that.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Now you're just trying to be cute and replying to a comment that does not even concern you while completely ignoring comments from others that directly have challenged statements you have made. You will see that I was correct in my analysis of which fallacy was used but if you want to turn the argument off-topic to debate that then please go ahead and do so.

I never claimed Randi to be a scientist. My response is directed at Total Package's inane comments about science and scientists. He is who I was replying and quoted as can clearly be seen.

Now it seems to me that you're just playing at being argumentative and not really adding much to this discussion. I was hoping you would provide the videos or other evidence you claimed to "sour" you on Randi. Your latest reply does nothing to further the discussion. Now, I know it's your modus operandi, but can you attempt to reply to me without picking apart words or quoting me out of context?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
OK really this is the only post I think is bringing up a major valid point so I'll entertain it...


Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


If you actually read what i was saying it was quite simple really. Randi does NOT have a sensible system of methodology and probably doesn't give a damn about working on one because he has a set idea of what HE BELIEVES psychic ability SHOULD be. He does not attempt to collate data from a wide enough source and then determine the method, with which, it might be tested. Ergo his is bad science.




Props for bringing it back on topic. I don't think these tangents about James Dean's car and psychic necklace girls antecdotes are really getting us anywhere. It all really comes down to whether Randi's METHODOLOGY discredits him and not his attitude or bias, which would be compensated for provided sound methodology.

I've seen at least one example where his methodolgy is quite shoddy (mostly on TV for an audience). I've also seen at least one example where his methodology seems perfectly in line within the context of testing for paranormal phenomena. So for me, the quality of his tests varies, yet one thing that doesn't seem to vary from one test to another is the absolute failure to demonstrate any paraormal ability at above chance levels. Even in the shoddy experiments I would have expected at least one case where "ability" is able to overcome "biased circumstances", but none so far have.

on the other hand, the guy looks like an old chimpanzee, so there's that...

[edit on 15-10-2009 by ImitationKrab]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by ImitationKrab]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Now you're just trying to be cute and replying to a comment


Neh. I'm not. I just see great promise in you, young Skywalker, and I don't want you corrupted by the evil emperor.


that does not even concern you while completely ignoring comments from others that directly have challenged statements you have made.


What statements have I made that have been challenged? I understand research science and scientific methodology because I have been a principle investigator, part of scientific peer review, and part of an IRB. I haven't said anything "pro-psychic". I haven't said anything anti-skeptical.

I just say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with James Randi and he is my "skeptic" version of Blossom Goodchild.

Is that not good?



Now it seems to me that you're just playing at being argumentative and not really adding much to this discussion.
Oh, come on! It was the best I could do at lunch. Looking for them now ya big baby!

*grumbles as she troddles off*



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
What statements have I made that have been challenged? I understand research science and scientific methodology because I have been a principle investigator, part of scientific peer review, and part of an IRB. I haven't said anything "pro-psychic". I haven't said anything anti-skeptical.

I just say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with James Randi and he is my "skeptic" version of Blossom Goodchild.

Is that not good?



There is a reply from baklava specifically directed at your statements about double blind studies in which you are quoted. Also, Arbitrageur explains the statistical side of things much better than I could. I know that you have not said anything "pro-psychic" nor "anti-skeptic" but we're not arguing for the sake of arguing I hope. There were some very heinous accusations and emotional appeals and not much evidence. Anyways, I do look forward to those videos


[edit on 15-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


Gar! You are better at finding James Randi stuff. I think it was an epi of "BS". He is speaking of the way the experiments at the University of Arizona were being conducted and criticizing the methodology being used.

Does that ring a bell? Can you U2U me a link and I can give the exact wording that turned me off, but essentially he was overlooking the stage of research that they were in and judging them by the standards that would be applied to predicated research.

I am not a big "psychic" person. I've seen strange things but I always try to debunk them (mostly because the idea scares me). The people who I have met that claim to be psychic (with the exception of one little girl--and she didn't claim to be one) are either the worst psychics in the history of the world or they are completely full of manure. Be that as it may I still see it as a researchable topic. I mean, why not?

Why not ask questions? Why not see what's out there, if anything is?

So, say you are going to research a theoretical and speculative topic where the initial evidence is unpredictable you must treat the subject differently than say, gravity-heck, gravity isn't gravity anymore...um, like say "aging" or the effects of a new drug. You would treat it with the same approach as "chaos" theories, and then if you find some patterns, you broaden the research, then if that has results worthy of further research, you widen it more, add in additional assumptions, perhaps figure out what tools would be beneficial, etc.

Randi looks at it like you would medical research (where we have years of study and research that predicates future research), rather than chaos or particle research where in its nascent beginnings was treated just as skeptically because they hadn't the tools at the beginning of the theorizing to provide enough evidence as to be accepted as "proof". To Randi, you have a placebo and the drug. Either or.

He doesn't seem, or didn't in this show, to get that "we aren't there" yet. If this anomaly exists it does not exist with the repeatability of a lunar cycle.

Is it a gift from The Great Beyond?
Is it a suppressed human trait?
Is it complex matrix thinking the "psychic" is not even aware of?
Is it an innate almost instinctive ability to do complex algorithms and probabilities?

We are not even at the point of "real" research, we are in the exploring/planning stages, and he criticized them using standards that would be applied to approved research.

U2U me the link where he talks about them and I'll find the bit in it. Too much Randi overload on YouTube made me want to have cookies



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Apparently I was supposed to answer this...


Originally posted by Baklava


By definition, double blind tests are designed to reduce or eliminate bias in the results. It's a way to respond to your worry that any JREF bias could influence the outcome of the test.


If you are speaking of dowsing for water or gold or whatever...that is not "research" it is performing on cue and the double blind makes sense so that both parties are assured of--how did you guys put it? Ah, yes! Fairness.

When you are deliberating whether or not to research a topic and are in the exploratory phase where you are creating your assumptions and developing the protocols, or even in "Phase 1" then the double blind is not always necessary. It depends upon the subject, the volunteer population, the results, etc. It is expensive and may not be justifiable at Phase 1.




Randi has fooled people into believing that his credentials as a magician make him an SME on the ways of science.


No, Randi's credentials make him an SME on the ways of deception not science. In fact, Randi specifically differentiates himself from scientists.


Vista: If the scientific world at large accepted homeopathy, would you change your skeptism?

James Randi: Not necessarily.

James Randi: Us scientists make mistakes, too.


He does not differentiate himself from scientists, as you put it. And his credentials make him capable of judging illusions, but they also make him a bit biased in the same way that police officers admit that they are overly skeptical of people because their of their job.


Regarding the eagerness to support research universities, it's important to understand how often scientists have been fooled or have engaged in deception themselves.


Far less often then you are seeming to purport. No one is infallible. I recognize this. I am not a "black-white" person. I am just a person who has done research for the past *cough cough* years and he is oversimplifying the process.


What is admirable, in my opinion, are the scientists, psychologists, and even media who employ people like Randi for a second opinion when they encounter a self-proclaimed paranormalist with abilities they cannot readily explain to ensure trickery is not the simple explanation.


Slight of hand is one thing, and if I ever believe that my neighbor has the mystical and magical powers capable of sawing his wife in half and putting her back together I would definitely call Randi come experimentation time.

BTW, I wouldn't even have the above quote for Randi if I were not working my patootie off to find some old program he was on for your buddy up there. *sigh*



[edit on 15-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Another poster states that I should reply to you, but I have no idea why. I suppose because you were stating that Randi should ask for better than 75% accuracy...?

Can you further explain how assumptions affect research and statistics because no one believes me?

I keep trying to explain that Randi has made the assumption that if one were to have "psychic" powers (whatever that means) then it would be like a skill that can be executed on command as opposed to a random event, or even an induced (trauma, smell, seismic activity, vibrational, etc) event. If the experiment were designed to show that it is "induced" it would have a different set of statistics performed, etc.

"Science" is not "one size fits all"



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Unfortunately, I can't help you with your homework assignment. I'm not familiar with the video you are referring to. I did try to spend some time searching for a Penn and Teller episode but as you said there is just so much out there and I beleive those episodes are copyrighted so they may not be available on YouTube. I'd really like to see exactly what he said that stirred you so much.

You ask the questions: "Why not ask questions? Why not see what's out there, if anything is?" and this is good. I would consider myself an agnostic in this entire thing. I neither believe nor disbelieve, rather I await solid evidence. I agree that perhaps the approach science or other logical thinkers use may not be the best to explore this phenomena but science applies the methods available now or in theory and is constantly evolving. So if, as you say, the methods are not necessarily the right ones, we will have the "right" ones in the future. You would need quite a multi-faceted team to even take the type of approach you are looking at. Somehow it reminds me of the Nazi occult stories
I'm not disagreeing with you on the need for a dream team of paranormal investigators, but as Arbitrageur and ImitationKrab have said, if those that took the challenge are able to manifest such powers, surely it would be demonstrated above that which chance statistically provides even with less than ideal conditions.

I do not think that Randi or other skeptics stop the research into the paranormal. I've also agreed that there is a stigma towards the paranormal in science. I'd like to quote Jacques Vallee from his "Messenger of Deception". He writes in terms of UFO paranormal phenomenon but I think it's quite applicable.


The belief in UFOs widens the gap between the public and scientific institutions. Some day our society will pay the price for the lack of scientific attention given the UFO phenomenon. As more and more witnesses come forward with their stories, only to be summarily rejected by the academic or military institutions they thought they could trust, an increasing gap is created. Not only may the public turn away from science in any form (and become skeptical of the value of it's investment in energy research and space technology), but it may seek to substitute in a new high demand philosophies and pseudosciences. The movement towards superstition in turn antagonizes the scientists, who cite is as evidence that the UFO phenomenon should not be studied seriously, and the vicious circle continues.


We do need to spend more time examining this phenomenon but not resort to pseudoscience. Naturally you will fall back on your argument that Randi does not follow protocol but isn't that always the case when it comes to the paranormal? I once again defer to mathematical probability for such a manifestation to occur.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


Dude,

this is based on an assumption that paranormal (whatever the heck that means) activity is a skill or trait that can be harnessed by will, rather than some potential primordial mechanism of self-defense that manifests itself sporadically or even accidentally. We do not have enough observational data to make a correct assumption (if there are even assumptions to make), ergo we cannot write a proper proposal/protocol/statistical analysis--you name it.

I am not talking pseudoscience, I am speaking of real science.

You need to set your assumptions first. First. Assumptions come before research. Assumptions are important to research. Assumptions direct the course of Phase 1. Assumptions can make or break the research. Statistics are based on assumptions. Assumptions come before statistics. Assumptions are vital to research. Assumptions come before research. Wrong assumptions, bad statistics, bad research.

Do you see what I am saying? These are mandatory to the field of research.

Are you trying to hurt me? I think you are trying to make me crazy. Why do you want to make me crazy? I'm a nice person, I am, I am...

*scurries off*

[edit on 15-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

EDIT: BTW, anyone who would take the challenge should be immediately evaluated for self-harming behavior. There is no way you can prove that it is "paranormal". You can only prove that certain events took place under a set of conditions and witnessed by so and so with a success rate of blah blah blah. You cannot win the money because we have no "theory" to prove. It is not a scientific experiment it is a contest with a prize.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Another poster states that I should reply to you, but I have no idea why. I suppose because you were stating that Randi should ask for better than 75% accuracy...?

Can you further explain how assumptions affect research and statistics because no one believes me?

I keep trying to explain that Randi has made the assumption that if one were to have "psychic" powers (whatever that means) then it would be like a skill that can be executed on command as opposed to a random event, or even an induced (trauma, smell, seismic activity, vibrational, etc) event. If the experiment were designed to show that it is "induced" it would have a different set of statistics performed, etc.

"Science" is not "one size fits all"


I would have to correct you. You've misread what Arbitrageur posted. Also, Randi does not make the assumption that if one were to have paranormal abilities that they would be able to manifest them at any time. The ones accepting such challenges are free to say they do not feel right, a common excuse used after failure but when asked before and during the challenge they usually feel fine. The video link provided by baklava is a fine example of Uri Geller feeling fine for a performance but then all of a sudden feeling "weak" or some such nonsense. Those that claim such powers usually don't say



Psychic*

*Only during the hours of 8-5PM or 11-2PM Saturdays
**Off hours ability determined by random seizure events throughout the day


If chance events are enough to convince you that such powers exist then please by all means believe, but for most it has to be statistically higher than chance to demonstrate the existence of such phenomena. Science is not "one sized fits all"? Science is a Swiss Army Knife consisting of Swiss Army Knives.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
[ would have to correct you. You've misread what Arbitrageur posted.


No, I was making up something to say because you felt so strongly that I was picking on you and ought to respond to others. I read what he had to say. You are not listening to what I have to say. You cannot have statistics without assumptions. I was hoping because you enjoyed his post so much that if he told you the same thing you might investigate that facet of research more.


Also, Randi does not make the assumption that if one were to have paranormal abilities that they would be able to manifest them at any time.


He does not require 100% manifestation. Okay. That still isn't my point. I'm not even at statistics yet. I am at the assumption.

Why are we assuming that psychic ability is at will? Why are we assuming that it is a constant trait? Perhaps it is a defense mechanism? Perhaps it does not exist. Perhaps it does and it crawls back up like a number two when people are watching you...

Who knows?

We have not observed enough examples, verified them, etc. to get out of the gate on this one.


The ones accepting such challenges are free to say they do not feel right, a common excuse used after failure but when asked before and during the challenge they usually feel fine.


And? Yeh? I've also told you what I think of people who accept the "challenge". They're like the William Hungs of this world going on American Idol even though they can't sing.


The video link provided by baklava is a fine example of Uri Geller feeling fine for a performance but then all of a sudden feeling "weak" or some such nonsense. Those that claim such powers usually don't say


Do you think I'm a Uri Geller fan? Because you keep bringing him up to me.



If chance events are enough to convince you that such powers exist then please by all means believe, but for most it has to be statistically higher than chance to demonstrate the existence of such phenomena.


Here we go...

Where did I say that I believed such powers exist?

Seriously, where did I say it?

I've said we haven't the data to prove or disprove it. It is in "theoretical" territory with observational methodologies that can be applied until it passes into a different phase.


Science is not "one sized fits all"? Science is a Swiss Army Knife consisting of Swiss Army Knives.


Uh huh. Yep. Note, that I agreed. My fear is that you will once more put on the funny looking glasses that make my words and phrases come out backwards.

Seriously, you're trying to cause me to burst into a fit of apoplexy, aren't you?

BTW, is Uri Geller even still alive? Why are we talking about him?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join