James Randi is an idiot!!

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am aware of those examples, I would just like to know how the amount of resources spent studying these people outweighs the potential advantages of finding anything legitimate about these kinds of phenomena, or any reason to doubt the possibility of these phenomena besides that they have not yet been scientifically validated. It is well-known to all scientists in all fields that science still has plenty to learn, especially in sciences dealing with the mind, which are baby sciences. I don't think Randi is helping anyone with his pessimism and automatic bias towards anything that doesn't fit into 19th-century ways of thinking.

If you read my original comment that you responded to, I said those frauds, like Geller, wasted countless resources that could have been spent looking for and researching genuine paranormal phenomenon. I have also already given my position regarding the advantages of discovering such phenomena. Please do not try to misrepresent my position.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]

reply to post by 1llum1n471


If you really believe this stuff is worth investigating critically, and if you want to see more research into these things in public institutions instead of just military institutions, one way to help that would be to stop ridiculing the ideas of psychic phenomena every time they pop up in academic circles. People like Randi are exactly why this bias exists, and there is absolutely no justification for it. Of course there are frauds and liars. But then there is also positive evidence of additional forms of energy science has yet to quantify in MIT's Dr. William Tiller's work, as well as (dare I even say it?), positive evidence of psychic phenomena in Carl Jung's research, specifically people being able to read cards remotely much more often than probability should allow. There were 4 cards drawn at random about 20 times, and one of Jung's subjects was even able to guess every single card right. This is all ancient history by now and still Randi rants and raves like there can never be any such thing, as if he gets to decide that.

reply to post by bsbray11


Please do not make assumptions about my actions, motives, and personal opinion about paranormal phenomenon. It's quite easy to blame skeptics for so many things such as the stigma surrounding the paranormal among the scientific community. As I said previously, I imagine this stigma is more likely due to frauds and pseudo-scientists.

Click here for more information.

I don't particularly have anything to discuss, except the Randi is just a windbag and more trouble than he's worth to science. Sure he's exposed a few frauds, but it went to his head too fast and he made his mind up prematurely. Now more than anything he just perpetuates scientific bias. Which is why he's a windbag, along with everyone else who knows how to do nothing but trash-talk entire fields of study.

reply to post by 1llum1n471


Okay, I did what you asked and perused the Randi forums. I have a few questions for you that I could not answer just by "searching" through the website.

According to JREF it is: The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

Awesome! I am glad to know they are "open-minded" enough to conduct actual research as opposed to dismissing something out of hand. So, my first question is:

1) Where is the "original research" that JFREF funds and conducts?

The closest thing I could find is this scholarship that states ...
The criteria for awarding the scholarships will include the applicant's academic potential, background, and most importantly, their plan for building critical thinking skills into their chosen field of study, reflecting the goals and values of the James Randi Educational Foundation. The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

2) I also noticed that "anti-vaccination" is somehow related to the paranormal these days. Can you explain, for I simply cannot, how vaccines are related to entities, ESP, aliens, or UFOlogy?

So, Randi is now a subject matter expert on medical research, causation, and civil liberties now? Wow! He really is amazing.

It is too bad Einstein is no longer around we could challenge them both to a think off! To be so brilliant and so knowledged as to be a SME in so many fields of study....

Note: Giving an emotional and worried mother a "Pigasus Award" is rude. It just is. Moreover, stating that The antivaccination movement has been directly linked with outbreaks of various vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, and there have been numerous illnesses and even deaths associated with these outbreaks. is not true.

Correlation is not causation. That is the mantra of the medical establishment and if it is used to state why correlation is not "proof" of vaccination-related injury, then the pendulum must swing both ways and conversely be stated that it is likewise not "proof" that the "antivaccination movement" has been linked to disease and death.

I am not arguing pro or anti vaccines, just use the same standards when critiquing both arguments.

Plus... I have no idea how it is "paranormal"?

Is he now going to branch out into particle physics and challenge the Hadron Collider team? They haven't gotten that bad boy working and look at all the money they've spent.

3) And why is "electronic voice phenomenon" rejected for the purpose of the challenge? Allison implied it is because the challenge rests on the premise that "ghosts"/"entities" exist, and the inability to prove that the "entities" are answering the questions?

Per Allison:

I ask again - how is recording a name and responses to questions paranormal? If you say "Because they came from a paranormal entity," then I have to ask how you know that it's a paranormal entity. And then you have to show me the evidence that any paranormal entity exists whatsoever. Again, you're still working off a prior assumption. Changing the word from "ghost" to "paranormal entity" does nothing for your cause.

By these standards how could Sylvia Browne prove she was speaking to a paranormal entity, and not just pulling crap out of her ass? Substitute "recorder" for "Sylvia Browne" and you have the same exact challenge. Why is it okay when it is "people" interpreting for the ghosts and not okay when someone is recording the "ghost"?

My guess is because Randi wanted to humiliate Sylvia Browne and this guy doesn't have as much "media presence" as she.

Here is an example where there are not equal standards applied, and why this is not scientific.

As for the "prior assumption"...DUH! Research into theoretical territories requires assumptions. In fact, particle research would not have advanced at all without prior assumptions.

In science we:

1) Gather data
2) Hypothesize an explanation (IE, an unknown intelligent entity is speaking to the recorder in a frequency that we cannot detect with our own ears)
3) Deduce a consequence and form your protocol
4) Is there corroboration? Yes? Repeat. No? Revise hypothesis.

What is a "hypothesis"? Well, it comes from the Greek word hypotithenai meaning to put an idea under something; to suppose it, and it is used in science as a holding place for an idea that has not been been explained by current theories.

So in the EVP case, the individual

1) Gathered data
2) Submitted his hypothesis
3) Submitted his protocol

and got back the response that basically his hypothesis was unproven.

Well, no #z Sherlock! If it is proven what is the point of the challenge? I can prove that this invisible force called gravity exists, can I win a million dollars now?

Ahem.

4) "Media Presence" is listed as mandatory. Why? It seems then you are culling for attention seekers, not seeking a true investigation into the paranormal, which is why he supposedly is seeking...what with funding real research and everything.

BTW, I wrote you back!






[edit on 19-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread166678/pg13#pid7363972]
According to JREF it is: The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

Awesome! I am glad to know they are "open-minded" enough to conduct actual research as opposed to dismissing something out of hand.

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

Good quote-- there is a major difference between the words "reliability" and "validity". Reliability does not equal validity. Reliability refers to the outcome consistency.

You can get consistent results, and still be totally off base because of a neglect of validity.

It is interesting to see that JREF's own literature reports that they are only interested in reliability.

reply to post by A Fortiori


I'm not sure if I'm the right person to answer your questions as I'm no expert on Randi or the JREF, but I'll try my best.

1) Where is the "original research" that JFREF funds and conducts?

I believe you saw this listed as item #3 in the About the JREF section:

The Foundation's goals include:

* Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
* Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
* Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
* Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

I would assume that the items were listed in order of priority, but I could be wrong. The JREF presents itself as an educational organization first and foremost. I perused their forum, specifically the JREF section, and found discussions of their activity which seems to focus more on in person events and physical publications. They do however have a Swift blog on their site that you may want to take a look at.

I also noticed that "anti-vaccination" is somehow related to the paranormal these days. Can you explain, for I simply cannot, how vaccines are related to entities, ESP, aliens, or UFOlogy?

You'll notice in About the JREF section I quoted about, the JREF also makes it a point to provide educational material on pseudo-scientific claims of which the Anti-Vaccination campaign most certainly belongs to. If you have a problem with the statement you quoted, perhaps you should take it up with some of the others that have expressed similar sentiments such as Richard Dawkins. You should have a look at Steven Novella's excellent article "The Anti-Vaccination Movement" in order to have a better understanding of the type of damage that is being done thanks to the misinformation being spread by the Anti-Vaccine fear mongers. On the other hand, if they are emotional and worried then maybe we should give them a free pass and let it slide?

About your LHC comment, was that a subtle hint at Nielsen and Ninomiya?

And why is "electronic voice phenomenon" rejected for the purpose of the challenge?

There is quite a difference between the claims of EVP and that of a psychic or channel. You're being quite misleading in this section and building a house of cards.

"Media Presence" is listed as mandatory. Why?

I would imagine a big part of the "media presence" is due to legal reasons. It's best to have these things done in public and as much of it recorded as possible to aid in complications that may arise such as accusations made by the contestant. Let me put it another way: Why put forth so much effort and time towards a contest only to have the results, process, etc silenced by legal threats. Do you think any of contestants would want the results made public if they failed?

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread166678/pg13#pid7363972]
According to JREF it is: The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

Awesome! I am glad to know they are "open-minded" enough to conduct actual research as opposed to dismissing something out of hand.

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

Good quote-- there is a major difference between the words "reliability" and "validity". Reliability does not equal validity. Reliability refers to the outcome consistency.

You can get consistent results, and still be totally off base because of a neglect of validity.

It is interesting to see that JREF's own literature reports that they are only interested in reliability.

You do realize there are multiple definitions of reliable and reliability, right?

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

I'm not sure if I'm the right person to answer your questions as I'm no expert on Randi or the JREF, but I'll try my best.

1) Where is the "original research" that JFREF funds and conducts?

I believe you saw this listed as item #3 in the About the JREF section:

The Foundation's goals include:

* Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
* Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
* Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
* Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

I would assume that the items were listed in order of priority, but I could be wrong. The JREF presents itself as an educational organization first and foremost.

So this contest is "research"? If it is someone has a potential lawsuit on their hands. I will bet they mean something else...they would have to.

I also noticed that "anti-vaccination" is somehow related to the paranormal these days. Can you explain, for I simply cannot, how vaccines are related to entities, ESP, aliens, or UFOlogy?

You'll notice in About the JREF section I quoted about, the JREF also makes it a point to provide educational material on pseudo-scientific claims of which the Anti-Vaccination campaign most certainly belongs to.

Oh dear Lord! Basically then, JREF's whole purpose is to attack anything not mainstream? Great. That means, unfortunately, they will never go away...

*searches for exit door off the planet*

If you have a problem with the statement you quoted, perhaps you should take it up with some of the others that have expressed similar sentiments such as Richard Dawkins. You should have a look at Steven Novella's excellent article "The Anti-Vaccination Movement" in order to have a better understanding of the type of damage that is being done thanks to the misinformation being spread by the Anti-Vaccine fear mongers. On the other hand, if they are emotional and worried then maybe we should give them a free pass and let it slide?

I am not going to debate the vaccination issue in a post on Randi. My point has always been that he is not qualified to determine what is a "good" scientific study because he is not a scientist. He has enough intelligence and life experience to be dangerous because he believes that he is smart enough to assimilate information--but does he have enough or the right information.

IF there was no room for question on this topic, then the FDA, the CDC, HHS, and others would not now be funding studies on vaccine-related injuries and why they were caused in some children.

Do I think vaccines are bad? No, I don't for the vast majority of children. But there are people who have highly sensitive systems (the CDC will acknowledge this) and for this reason alone we should not mock the pain of others because their arguments could very well be real.

And why is "electronic voice phenomenon" rejected for the purpose of the challenge?

There is quite a difference between the claims of EVP and that of a psychic or channel. You're being quite misleading in this section and building a house of cards.

Take that up with the JREF. They are the ones stating on one hand that ghosts do not exist to the guy who is saying that ghosts speak through EVP as their reasoning for rejection, but will accept a challenge of someone who talks to ghosts in person.

"Media Presence" is listed as mandatory. Why?

I would imagine a big part of the "media presence" is due to legal reasons. It's best to have these things done in public and as much of it recorded as possible to aid in complications that may arise such as accusations made by the contestant. Let me put it another way: Why put forth so much effort and time towards a contest only to have the results, process, etc silenced by legal threats. Do you think any of contestants would want the results made public if they failed?

No, no. You must have media presence. Read the rules. You must have been in the public eye to be in the contest.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by A Fortiori

So this contest is "research"? If it is someone has a potential lawsuit on their hands. I will bet they mean something else...they would have to.

I'm not a member of the JREF so I do not have access to their printed media to provide further details. Is the contest considered research? I can't say but perhaps one thing that would help clear it up is what definition of research is being used.

My point has always been that he is not qualified to determine what is a "good" scientific study because he is not a scientist. He has enough intelligence and life experience to be dangerous because he believes that he is smart enough to assimilate information--but does he have enough or the right information.

I don't think either of us are able to say whether Randi is qualified to determine what is a "good" scientific study. There is a large team behind the JREF. You can take a look at the credentials of the Swift bloggers for a taste. Perhaps one of those would suit your requirements? By the way, this entire section of your argument is based on a genetic fallacy.

IF there was no room for question on this topic, then the FDA, the CDC, HHS, and others would not now be funding studies on vaccine-related injuries and why they were caused in some children.

Do I think vaccines are bad? No, I don't for the vast majority of children. But there are people who have highly sensitive systems (the CDC will acknowledge this) and for this reason alone we should not mock the pain of others because their arguments could very well be real.

Yes, those groups should be diligent and not ignore such claims. What was the point?

Can you point me in the direction of the mother in question? I'd like to see exactly what she said and what made her earn her award. I understand that there are children with highly sensitive systems, however let's wait until the research is in. If you are talking about people like McCarthy who are not just a grieving parent but rather one of the spokespersons for the Anti-Vaccination movement then we're just going to have to disagree on the correct treatment for her. I find her to be quite a ridiculous person.

Take that up with the JREF. They are the ones stating on one hand that ghosts do not exist to the guy who is saying that ghosts speak through EVP as their reasoning for rejection, but will accept a challenge of someone who talks to ghosts in person.

You're oversimplifying things once again. There are multiple factors that would go into EVP testing for one. I'm no expert on Sylvia Brown, but she claims to be a psychic which does not necessarily mean mediumship. From a very simple perspective, isn't it easier to judge the clear but often vague words of a psychic against the perceived voice from static on EVP? A joke, please don't take it seriously

I checked the Million Dollar Challenge FAQ, is this what you referred to?

www.randi.org...

Section 2.6 explains the need. It would seem the second answer from the JREF in that section answers you. It seems to be it's just another way to screen contestants.

reply to post by 1llum1n471


1) I apologize for over generalizing (ref genetic fallacy). There are children who have recorded AEs showing a sensitivity to something in the vaccine. In fact, there are many. As this is OT of "Randi is an idiot" and will quickly degenerate into a discussion into the anti-vax movement much like mentioning abortion in, well, any thread can derail it within seconds...I will U2U you the info on it.

2) Sylvia Browne claimed she talked to dead people and is a medium. So..."ghosts".

reply to post by A Fortiori


Thanks, I'll check out the link you provided. As far as Sylvia Brown is concerned, I just used the About Sylvia section from her website for a description of her powers. I guess I'll have to resort to a re-run of Montel Williams to find out what he real ability is

reply to post by 1llum1n471


BTW, I think Sylvia Browne is full of condensed owl manure. I don't buy her or John Edwards, actually. The people who have freaked me out with "accuracies" were dead on, not vague, and then they couldn't "repeat the performance", didn't ask for money, and were mostly small children.

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread166678/pg13#pid7363972]
According to JREF it is: The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

Awesome! I am glad to know they are "open-minded" enough to conduct actual research as opposed to dismissing something out of hand.

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

Good quote-- there is a major difference between the words "reliability" and "validity". Reliability does not equal validity. Reliability refers to the outcome consistency.

You can get consistent results, and still be totally off base because of a neglect of validity.

It is interesting to see that JREF's own literature reports that they are only interested in reliability.

You do realize there are multiple definitions of reliable and reliability, right?

I didn't realize that the JREF had multiple definitions of statistical reliability as it pertains to their human subject research.

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread166678/pg13#pid7363972]
According to JREF it is: The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

Awesome! I am glad to know they are "open-minded" enough to conduct actual research as opposed to dismissing something out of hand.

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

Good quote-- there is a major difference between the words "reliability" and "validity". Reliability does not equal validity. Reliability refers to the outcome consistency.

You can get consistent results, and still be totally off base because of a neglect of validity.

It is interesting to see that JREF's own literature reports that they are only interested in reliability.

You do realize there are multiple definitions of reliable and reliability, right?

I didn't realize that the JREF had multiple definitions of statistical reliability as it pertains to their human subject research.

Let me quote the original for you once again:

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

You're making this harder than it looks.

I think the underlying problem we are all picking at here is that "skeptics" and "skepticism" has just become another excuse for blind belief no different than religion or anything else, and more and more people are coming face to face with this. And JREF is one big open sore of an example of this phenomenon.

JREF'ers and Randi himself all consider themselves "skeptics."

Now let's think about this name "skeptic" critically for a second.

Everyone is "skeptical" of something. I defy anyone to name me 1 example of any person, with any opinion on any subject whatsoever, that is not skeptical of something.

So, naturally, everyone is skeptical. No exceptions.


So then who are these people that call themselves "skeptics," as if they are especially "skeptical," and what can we generally say about them?

The bottom line is this: "skepticism" is a psychological defense mechanism. Defensive against what? A skeptic would probably say, in their usual sarcastic fashion, "bullcrap" or "frauds" or etc. But really they are simply defensive against new ideas. They don't like new ideas, that conflict with already-held beliefs about the world, so they take offense and defend themselves against new ideas the same way an animal defends physical territory. These skeptics just see themselves as waging a mental battle against ideas that they don't like. And they really are engaged in mental conflict, and suffer from cognitive dissonance. This is reflected in habitually negative attitudes, sarcasm, vitriol, ad hominem, pessimism, and a lot of other behaviors that are definitive of JREF and JREF, for example, is widely known by many people to be such a place as far as web forums go.

A classic historical example of these kinds of people can be found debating Copernicus or Galileo regarding their new theories on the Earth and the universe. Copernicus died thought a fool because nearly all of his colleagues were unprepared to accept the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which seemed to belittle the importance of their own planet. It is one thing to have simply disagreed with Copernicus, but like I said, these people hounded him, mocked him, and thought of him as a stupid person, because they became defensive at what he said, because they were frightened by it. Because deep down, they knew it was true.

Those "scientists" and "experts" arguing with Copernicus and Galileo served one function only: to reinforce the status-quo of accepted opinions of their day. Not to challenge anything or entertain new ideas. Only to support the status-quo. And that is exactly what "skeptics" still do today, on all number of issues they are not psychologically prepared to accept new information from.

As we enter technological ages where we constantly learn more and more marvelous things about our universe, and more and more becomes possible, we also need to be more and more open-minded, calm, and rational. We can still be skeptical, but there is no need to particularly identify ourselves as "skeptics," just as there is no need to call ourselves "believers" simply because we all DO happen to believe things. We really need to be more mature about all of this, or else we won't be able to keep up with the new rate of information as human beings.


Skeptics are just afraid of new ideas. That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong in any particular instance, because they make their good points, but they also are extremely biased.

No one who is comfortable and trusting in the universe around them would have to identify with "skeptic," or label themselves a "skeptic" to feel adequate. It is a kind of disease of insecurity and fear. Just as anyone labeling themselves "believer" could be a disease of gullibility. No need for any of it. We are all "believers" and we are ALL "skeptics." No exceptions, only self-enforced illusions of it.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You're arguing that skeptics are trying to enforce the status quo and attempting to support your argument using examples of rational thinkers, specifically scientists, that were harassed by religious organizations. That's just rich

The two examples you provide are great examples of skeptical thinkers though, so thanks for that

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
The two examples you provide are great examples of skeptical thinkers though, so thanks for that

And you are proving my point exactly.

JREF and modern "skeptics" are not pushing the boundaries of science with new research. Rather, they attack many fields of study and research today for not conforming to traditional science.

The people arguing with Copernicus and Galileo were doing the exact same thing: not doing any original research, only attacking new ideas from new research and conforming to traditional scientific views of the day.

That similarity causes such cognitive dissonance to you, that you have to twist your perspective until you see Copernicus and Galileo as "skeptics," when they had absolutely nothing to do with reinforcing already-accepted scientific viewpoints at all. What they contributed was completely revolutionary to the field of science, which is not something associated with skeptics or skepticism like we are discussing today.

And not only that, but you also prove my point of sarcasm, negativity, etc. in your post as you respond to me sarcastically, with laughing faces, etc. You are extremely transparent to me. There are sarcastic, pessimistic, fearful people like yourself all throughout history and you are a cancer on society's tail that will have to eventually be removed, and I think we are in the birth pains of that today.