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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Aww, and we were getting on so well...

What about Stanton Friedman? He is a physicist. He uses scientific methodology. Is it fair to lump all UFOlogists into the same category with the Blossom Goodchild's and Alex Colliers? He approaches the subject highly scientifically.


I'd have to examine Stanton Friedman a bit more to provide a valid opinion. I've not been impressed with what I've seen of him though. I don't lump UFO researchers in with the contactees like Blossom Goodchild and Alex Collier. I know there are those that are genuinely trying to seek out the truth and follow the scientific method but those are so few and far between.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
You guys can do a few simple Google searches to answer some of the questions or claims you are making about Randi or other skeptics. People falling down on command? Look at Derren Brown for a great example. Being a skeptic doesn't make you immune to any of these tactics. In some cases being knowledgeable about some of these tricks leave you even more open to other tactics.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I hope that I can put my thoughts into words correctly on this one, so bear with me but a moment...

Animals and some of what we would consider a "primitive" tribe of humans literally sensed the tsunami before it occurred and went for higher ground. This is not "paranormal", but it is prescient. Animal signs are among "evidence" of natural disasters, but because it is not 100% accurate you aren't going to run for your life if you see a lack of animals running about.

There are extraordinary things in this world that are not always repeatable in a way that would fit the "test", and yet they exist and have been observed for countless years.


Thanks for bringing this topic back up. I wanted to respond to that when you originally mentioned it. You're correct, there is no paranormal activity going on there but I do not agree there is really prescience as well. There are theories and subsequent studies that show that there are precursors to these events such as the low frequency sound waves. Some animals like elephants communicate using low frequencies so I am sure humans and other animals are able to pick them up as well in some sort of fashion either consciously or subconsciously.


Exactly! Why isn't "psychic" ability "natural"? I watched this show where they had all of these psychics on there. This one lady couldn't help with a cold murder case and all of her "feelings" were wrong, but she could locate right away every hidden, "live" person when others could not. In fact she was scary fast at it. Perhaps, some of what we consider psychic is truly extra sensory perception. They can smell, or hear, or...I don't know, but something that others cannot.



I do not feel he has an open mind, no. I think this is where you would have to prove it to me by extraordinary measures. You are not dismissive. He is dismissive. In these short posts I can measure what a difference your respective characters.

I cannot prove the attitude of a man to you. You would have to look into his character and work to be able to judge him yourself. The work he has done is quite a merit. If you have some time, look at some of his earlier work and videos and you'll get a good grasp. He has a stage character and that's the persona that comes out quite often IMO.


...But has no place in what he is attempting to do. If Einstein called Oppenheimer an "idiot" you'd think less of him even if he was "Einstein".



I witnessed a three year old girl tell my best friend something about her mother who had passed on. She knew not my friend, or the girl's mother prior to this "encounter". Yet, she knew the person's name, knew where an item was located in her house (that we verified after the fact), and a few other things she absolutely could not have known. My friend was keen to know more but it was a one shot deal and even the girl could not remember having said it.

Was the child a "huckster"? No. She couldn't have known any of it, least of all this very uncommon first name or where the lost item was when even we did not know it.

Could we get her to repeat it? No. My friend was desperate for more information, having lost this person who meant so much to her but the child went back to acting like a regular three year old.

I witnessed this firsthand. Now, I don't expect you to believe it. You were not there. I just know what I saw and it was one of the few times I couldn't call a "read".

I have this other friend who thinks she's psychic, but she's just very good with reading people. She's not a huckster, either, but for a different reason. She believes she's psychic. She's not trying to hurt anyone.


I think we have to look past the glamour of these events and our own inate need to provide explanations no matter how fantastic they are. Have you watched the work of Derren Brown? He does quite amazing things with cold reading. This does not explain what happened with the child but it provides an alternate view that is worthy of examining.


Since you are nice, I will tell you that my tone is "nice" when I state the following: I'm not an idiot and the three year old was not cold reading. She ran up to us happily and dropped the bomb. She danced around all happy while her mother looked horrified. Cold reading wouldn't explain how she knew about a lost necklace (when even I didn't know she'd lost it) and that it was under the bed. Moreover, we are on the east coast, my friend is a blonde, and her mother was part-native American. She had a Native American (forgive me if this sounds ethnically un-PC) sounding name. All of this stuff is too weird for "cold reading".

It's not...I sense there is a M-sounding name that wants to talk to you about something you lost...

It's "< insert Native American name> said for you to stop crying at night and to look under the bed for the necklace. She loves you and she is fine..."


In "Flim Flam", Randi describes many of the paranormalists he ran into and says that not all are out to hurt people. Some believe they have a genuine power. The difference comes when they try to convince others of this power and try to benefit from it. Sort of like religion, it's fine to have yours but please don't proselytize.


Ummm, but that's not exactly scientific, is it? Why not investigate it for its possibilities instead of rushing to debunk? What if just three people could serve as early detection for earthquakes?


Personally, I don't have an issue with many of these beliefs. I think they are interested, but I do see many taking advantage of the belief of others.


True, true. I see that, too, and I believe those people will get theirs.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I am skeptical that Randi can ever part with his money. I have problems with him telling people they will die if they do not do what he thinks they should do with their bodies( remember Suzanne Somers). He discourages people from studying things which might pan out. Ball lightning which was once dismissed by people like Randi has been recreated in a laboratory experiment. The scientists did not consult Randi. He is not a scientist. No one should take his reward ,seriously. He loves his money, and he is clever enough to justify keeping it in all instances.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by eradown]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Exactly! Why isn't "psychic" ability "natural"? I watched this show where they had all of these psychics on there. This one lady couldn't help with a cold murder case and all of her "feelings" were wrong, but she could locate right away every hidden, "live" person when others could not. In fact she was scary fast at it. Perhaps, some of what we consider psychic is truly extra sensory perception. They can smell, or hear, or...I don't know, but something that others cannot.

Yes, if something such as these abilities exist then they are natural and are explainable scientifically. I'm not putting down the existence of paranormal phenomenon but saying that we need to examine them more logically. Those that claim to have such power, if truly interested in helping humanity, should make themselves available so they can be researched and the ability proved. I understand your point about ESP and that's exactly what Randi is great at. He works with each participant to design a test that would prove their paritcular skill beyond a doubt.


...But has no place in what he is attempting to do. If Einstein called Oppenheimer an "idiot" you'd think less of him even if he was "Einstein".


Actually no I wouldn't. Why put him on such a pedestal. The man was a genius and nothing can take that away from him. Do you think any less of him knowing he has been accused of being hyper sexual?


Since you are nice, I will tell you that my tone is "nice" when I state the following: I'm not an idiot and the three year old was not cold reading. She ran up to us happily and dropped the bomb. She danced around all happy while her mother looked horrified. Cold reading wouldn't explain how she knew about a lost necklace (when even I didn't know she'd lost it) and that it was under the bed. Moreover, we are on the east coast, my friend is a blonde, and her mother was part-native American. She had a Native American (forgive me if this sounds ethnically un-PC) sounding name. All of this stuff is too weird for "cold reading".

It's not...I sense there is a M-sounding name that wants to talk to you about something you lost...

It's kipping> "< insert Native American name> said for you to stop crying at night and to look under the bed for the necklace. She loves you and she is fine..." kips away>


I was just presenting one option. We would need to look at all possibilities in order to provide a more rational explanation. I'm just more along the line that we need to question and look at the possibilities. The normal before the paranormal.



Ummm, but that's not exactly scientific, is it? Why not investigate it for its possibilities instead of rushing to debunk? What if just three people could serve as early detection for earthquakes?


I think you misunderstood my intention for putting that. Randi is open to testing anyone that makes claims and is interested in the tests. It's best to investigate all possibilities as any of them may present an opportunity to prove the paranormal. If even one person was capable of detecting Earthquakes and we were able to find out what part of the brain or CNS was responsible it would be one of the most amazing discoveries.


True, true. I see that, too, and I believe those people will get theirs.


Unfortunately, even after being proved as frauds (Uri Geller comes to mind) they just make up and excuse and move on to another group of people to take advantage of. That's one of the problems with superstitious thinking. That's why I think it's better to be a bit skeptical about things and take a more rational approach before succumbing to faith/belief.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
I am skeptical that Randi can ever part with his money. I have problems with him telling people they will die if they do not do what he thinks they should do with their bodies( remember Suzanne Somers). He discourages people from studying things which might pan out. Ball lightning which was once dismissed by people like Randi has been recreated in a laboratory experiment. The scientists did not consult Randi. He is not a scientist. No one should take his reward ,seriously. He loves his money, and he is clever enough to justify keeping it in all instances.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by eradown]


How does Randi discourage anyone from studying these things? I think more than anything he just asks that they think more rationally. He's been called in for multiple research cases where the scientists did not design the experiment correctly and were therefore fooled. You really need to get a grip. If you can't understand Randi's humour fine, but to make such accusations without providing any evidence to back up your claims is just a bit much don't you think? Ask yourself why you feel so hurt and are so angry by someone like Randi. Superstition can be a powerful thing I guess.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
One of the problems with people like Randi is this. They simply can;t accept that, at times, people just genuinely seem to know the weirdest stuff, that has nothing to do with cold reading at all.

Take the case of Sir Alec Guinness and James Dean. Sir Alec was in the USA for some film contract. He was taken to some place where ,during the evening he was introduced to James Dean. Dean proudly let him to the parking lot and pointed to his new car. Sir Alec looked at the car, looked at Dean and said..

"If you drive that car, you will be dead inside 2 weeks "

Two weeks later, Dean was indeed dead. Now, the thing about Sir Alec is, he never claimed any psychic abilities, he was and i knew him through my father, one of the quietest and softly spoken gentleman i have ever met. He was most certainly not the sort to suddenly utter words like that to a stranger. What's more he never had any other sort of *psychic moment*. He himself could never explain why he said what he said.

You simply can;t *test* that sort of thing. However, if you were to add up every event like that, with less famous consequences granted, that will happen this week around the world. You would, in my opinion, have a list that would make your eyes water at its' length. That has to suggest, to anyone, with an open mind, there is some, latent talent, humans have that , randomly, just rears its' head and then vanishes.

To try and lump that sort of *talent*, with the great Marvo the Mystic and his all seeing psychic eye, is just intellectual dishonesty and shows Randi up, in my eyes, for being. Nothing more than media whore who was worried his career as a magician was going down the pan so made a second career from being aloud mouth skeptic and general all round rent a "quote".

Randi has spawned a host of gobby bad mannered skeptics who believe, calling people names and shouting a lot, is an acceptable form of scientific research. and debate.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Exactly! Why isn't "psychic" ability "natural"? I watched this show where they had all of these psychics on there. This one lady couldn't help with a cold murder case and all of her "feelings" were wrong, but she could locate right away every hidden, "live" person when others could not. In fact she was scary fast at it. Perhaps, some of what we consider psychic is truly extra sensory perception. They can smell, or hear, or...I don't know, but something that others cannot.

Yes, if something such as these abilities exist then they are natural and are explainable scientifically. I'm not putting down the existence of paranormal phenomenon but saying that we need to examine them more logically. Those that claim to have such power, if truly interested in helping humanity, should make themselves available so they can be researched and the ability proved. I understand your point about ESP and that's exactly what Randi is great at. He works with each participant to design a test that would prove their paritcular skill beyond a doubt.


Here is where we part ways. I don't believe that he does, in fact, do this. I have read accounts of his tests and they are not at all what a University would prescribe, they are very line in the sand versus line in concrete.



...But has no place in what he is attempting to do. If Einstein called Oppenheimer an "idiot" you'd think less of him even if he was "Einstein".


Actually no I wouldn't. Why put him on such a pedestal. The man was a genius and nothing can take that away from him. Do you think any less of him knowing he has been accused of being hyper sexual?


You're missing my point. You needn't attack people or reduce yourself to snark in order to effectively disagree with someone.



Since you are nice, I will tell you that my tone is "nice" when I state the following: I'm not an idiot and the three year old was not cold reading. She ran up to us happily and dropped the bomb. She danced around all happy while her mother looked horrified. Cold reading wouldn't explain how she knew about a lost necklace (when even I didn't know she'd lost it) and that it was under the bed. Moreover, we are on the east coast, my friend is a blonde, and her mother was part-native American. She had a Native American (forgive me if this sounds ethnically un-PC) sounding name. All of this stuff is too weird for "cold reading".

It's not...I sense there is a M-sounding name that wants to talk to you about something you lost...

It's kipping> "< insert Native American name> said for you to stop crying at night and to look under the bed for the necklace. She loves you and she is fine..." kips away>


I was just presenting one option. We would need to look at all possibilities in order to provide a more rational explanation. I'm just more along the line that we need to question and look at the possibilities. The normal before the paranormal.


I do not believe that most people would disagree with that. I have certainly questioned a lot of the so-called psychics and the whole wishful parent "indigo children" phenomenon. However, there is beyond a healthy skepticism and I see that, too.




Ummm, but that's not exactly scientific, is it? Why not investigate it for its possibilities instead of rushing to debunk? What if just three people could serve as early detection for earthquakes?


I think you misunderstood my intention for putting that. Randi is open to testing anyone that makes claims and is interested in the tests. It's best to investigate all possibilities as any of them may present an opportunity to prove the paranormal. If even one person was capable of detecting Earthquakes and we were able to find out what part of the brain or CNS was responsible it would be one of the most amazing discoveries.


But, his tests do not allow for that. They are meant to weed out in a first pass instead of look for potential anomalies. They are unscientific and as much a charade as the Uri Gellars of this world because they give the impression of being for scientific advancement and are actually just another illusion.



True, true. I see that, too, and I believe those people will get theirs.


Unfortunately, even after being proved as frauds (Uri Geller comes to mind) they just make up and excuse and move on to another group of people to take advantage of. That's one of the problems with superstitious thinking. That's why I think it's better to be a bit skeptical about things and take a more rational approach before succumbing to faith/belief.


As do I, I just think there is a better way of going about it.



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




Using hearsay and coincidence as proof sounds like bad science to me



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


This is a familiar story, ergo it is "First Person" as he recounted it himself. Our own legal system allows for firsthand evidence.

As for the events, if you discount the seemingly random occurrence you might miss an underlying order. Seagull flaps its wings in Tampa and Rio gets a hurricane.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Here is where we part ways. I don't believe that he does, in fact, do this. I have read accounts of his tests and they are not at all what a University would prescribe, they are very line in the sand versus line in concrete.


The tests are agreed upon prior with the participant so both parties understand what will occur and what the successful requirements are. These tests are not what a University would prescribe because they are beyond the scope of what most rigid scientists would be capable of coming up with. Randi is conjurer and knows some of the tricks the participants may employ and prepares for it with the tests.



You're missing my point. You needn't attack people or reduce yourself to snark in order to effectively disagree with someone.


Everyone has their own style and Randi has his. It's just his way of talking and discussing things. To me and others, it does not take away from the work he is trying to do and it's often amusing
Once again, after looking at his history and work, it's easy for me to see how one would become a bit cynical about paranormal phenomenon in general but at least he's still out there looking searching and questioning.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


This is a familiar story, ergo it is "First Person" as he recounted it himself. Our own legal system allows for firsthand evidence.

As for the events, if you discount the seemingly random occurrence you might miss an underlying order. Seagull flaps its wings in Tampa and Rio gets a hurricane.


Yes, our legal system allows for firsthand evidence but this is not scientific evidence and therefore not fact. Just look at the massive differences between the recounting of stories from first hand witnesses to see why this would be an issue.

It's very easy for us to get into pattern searching, it's a survival mechanism but it can also make us quite neurotic at times



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTerminator
 


I suspect this whole thread is based on a paraphrase. The only reference I can find to a source of this quote is, on a pro crop-circles website, about a National Geographic documentary:

www.cropcirclesecrets.org...

And according to that "The magician James Randi was upset enough to suggest that those of us curious about the circles should “get a life.” Of course he said the same thing about the hoaxers... maybe he thinks being a magician is a serious pursuit?"

Which is quite different from what's quoted above.

If someone can find a direct quote or definite source for the quote, go for it. As such this thread is the number one Google hit for the quote.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
If you can get the link for that mind control tribe, it will greatly contribute to Randi being a closed minded individual that does not give an open thought for paranormal. Unless I see that link its hard to decide.


Will look for it. Keep in mind, this was about 7-8 years ago, so might take some time. I stopped following Randi shortly after that incident when I seen his true colors and actually made me curious about supernatural things verses skeptically dismissive.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 
I read the article which accompanyed the thread. In it Randi told people studying crop circles and "lights" . He wished they would get a life. I am happy the the scientists who recreated ball lightning (thought by many not to exist) in a lab did not listen to Randi. I am not a mind reader ,but it appears based on his words Randi would like people not to study crop circles and "lights".



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
What about Stanton Friedman? He is a physicist. He uses scientific methodology. Is it fair to lump all UFOlogists into the same category with the Blossom Goodchild's and Alex Colliers? He approaches the subject highly scientifically.


Stanton Friedman used to be a nuclear physicist. Once he latched on Roswell changing reality to fantasy he probably never set foot in a lab again. He specialised in lying 'cause he found out that the gullible don't require evidence so it wasn't necessary for him to provide any. He doesn't use scientific methodology as the aim of such is to find the truth through repeated results. Since 1980 he's been laughing all the way to the bank!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by eradown
 


Randi is an Idiot!....

If this were the 1800s he would be burning women for being witches. All that does not conform to his view of the universe is dismissed as fakery in his world.

I mean I get... He does not believe in god ergo no such things as miracles no such thing as ghosts we all get it...I do not understand god myself and I do not claim too But I know a person who hates God as opposed to simply not believing in it.

A real atheist can have an open mind...a God Hater hates all things that are not mundane....

AND I TAKE THE CONVERSATION TO GOD....

Because of my first hand experience with these jokers. The strangest thing about them is how the really enjoy talking about hoaxes and how dumb people that believe in God are.... I mean they have a real hang up on it!

Unhealthy.

Basically an Alien could abduct James Randi and bring his mom back to life and he would pass it off as a self induced hallucination and then go check the JREF accounts to make sure his money was still there.......


One thing I have seen though.... Karma is another real force of the universe. And I am sure he deals with more than the folks he suppresses.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by titorite]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


This is a familiar story, ergo it is "First Person" as he recounted it himself. Our own legal system allows for firsthand evidence.

As for the events, if you discount the seemingly random occurrence you might miss an underlying order. Seagull flaps its wings in Tampa and Rio gets a hurricane.


Yes, our legal system allows for firsthand evidence but this is not scientific evidence and therefore not fact.


Untrue. Observation is the scientific process. Those that observe and record have firsthand evidence. Evidence is not fact it is evidence towards a potential fact.


Just look at the massive differences between the recounting of stories from first hand witnesses to see why this would be an issue.


Not if they record as the observe. In a legal setting, yes, difficult but allowed. In research we observe and record.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


What is hearsay about and incident that had witnesses to Sir Alec saying what he did to Dean/

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.

If we had adopted the Randi model of scientific investigation we would never had sent space ships to the Gas giants because, the telescopes of the 1960s told us, there was not a chance in hell there would be anything like life on any of their moons.

Evidence of the existence of the Gorilla was purely anecdotal for hundreds of years. I doubt that worried the Gorillas, I'm sure, whilst the good and great said they didn't exist they quite happily carried on doing exactly that for generation after generation.

As for coincidence again you managed to miss the whole point i was making. That being that, if you were take the data across a large section of the populace I am almost certain that, the number of *Spot on hits*, ie predictions that were accurate, would defy it being purely coincidental. But hey, let Randi rant away about bad science whilst having his own head so far up his own jacksie about methodology, he can probably see the back of his own teethe.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Untrue. Observation is the scientific process. Those that observe and record have firsthand evidence. Evidence is not fact it is evidence towards a potential fact.


Just look at the massive differences between the recounting of stories from first hand witnesses to see why this would be an issue.


Not if they record as the observe. In a legal setting, yes, difficult but allowed. In research we observe and record.



The justice system does not follow the methodology of science so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that specific definition of observation. There is observation and recollection. What most witnesses do is recollection which has many underlying issues. You also have to take into account the issues with perception. Even recording during observation is prone to the issues mentioned above. In science you observe results but you also have data and analysis to back up the observations




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join