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.
Originally posted by FireMoon
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.
Originally posted by 1llum1n471
I'd like to know where you're coming up with all your accusations? Have a look at the JREF site and read up on their methodology. If you find issue with it, you can contact them and provide a valid argument. They're not trying to hide anything nor is there a conspiracy.
Originally posted by titorite
Did you register specifically to defend the JREF and promote traffic back to that site with in the ATS rules set?
Randi is a charlatan, a faux skeptic, one who applies his beliefs to fit the evidence and when evidence is presented to him that counters his beliefs he dismisses it.
He does not apply rational test methodology.
He is a septic skeptic.
Originally posted by jclmavg
You should be demanding that these so called UFO researchers use better scientific processes and produce evidence to back up their hypotheses and claims.
Good one. Did Randi demand same of, say, Phil Klass' research? Seems this "demand" has a habit among skeptics of only working one way.
Originally posted by GROUP6
Randi is not an independent disinfo agent. Decades ago he was hired by the elite to do what he does, (look it up). He is, among other things, an incredible hypocrite because he blatantly does everything himself that he accuses his targets of doing, to wit: He makes a bundle by selling his "education programs" on his site, soliciting "donations" on his site, selling books loaded with falsehoods. He's paid to make the rounds of TV talk shows peddling his rants and drivel. As regards his million dollar challenge, remember this: Randi's idol is Houdini. Randi is not, as commonly thought, a magician, no, Randi is an escape artist and he has it down to a science how to never pay out on his "challange".
Randi's MO is to attack applicants on his web forum. He puts out a coded call to arms to the pack of howling jackals who follow him with the words: "Please Participate". His army then commences a mass email assault on the applicant.
James Randi will have no peace when he dies. Every medium on the planet will line up to call him in and remind him that he's an ass.
Originally posted by karl 12
Good post
You're certainly right about that - Klass was regarded as a bit of a joke even in sceptic circles.
As for dishonest and cynical UFO debunkery - there are some good USAF examples here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Cheers.
Originally posted by 1llum1n471
Originally posted by karl 12
Good post
You're certainly right about that - Klass was regarded as a bit of a joke even in sceptic circles.
As for dishonest and cynical UFO debunkery - there are some good USAF examples here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Cheers.
It was a nice attempt at a red herring at least
Originally posted by 1llum1n471
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
We can bad-mouth Randi all we want. I personally find his attitude rather crude and annoying, but the bottom line is that no one has come up with any evidence that satisfies not only Randi, but also most of the scientists throughout the world.
Originally posted by jackphotohobby
reply to post by A Fortiori
Double blind is often necessary to the protocol when measuring people, to avoid observer bias, to ensure the placebo effect is controlled, and to ensure fairness.
Behavioural science is, in theory, following the scientific method, will controls, etc. (unlike social science, which isn't science). Some would argue behavioural science isn't hard science.
With regards of the JREF Challenge: Nobody who has claimed supernatural powers or made such claims has ever been able to show a statistically significant effect in an environment with appropriate controls. It's not difficult to set up such a test.
The fact is that there are huge numbers of people making extraordinary claims, who don't want to prove it, because in the process of proving it they'll show themselves up as frauds or deluded.
They don't even have to go through James Randi. People making these extraordinary claims could set up their own tests, with controls, with rigour etc. THEY DON'T! Because they're making money from suckers. It's as simple as that.
No Geller didn't. He bent some spoons. And we all know science is beyond been fooled, right?
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by tomfrusso
You know, it really doesn't piss me off at all. Why?
Because we have no real proof. We have sightings, stories, hearsay and shabby photos.
Evidence must be concrete, it must be able to be examined, felt, touched, be able to put under a microscope.
As much as I believe in life elsewhere in the universe, it is hard to believe that we are being visited on a daily basis by ufo's.
My only question is why doesn't ET land in the middle of central park and say, "okay we're here".
I think that is the only thing that will be believed by everyone. Until then...it's all speculation.
That is if you employ the scientific method.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Double blind is often used, but my argument is not always necessary. I also don't see how it ensures "fairness" in a trial. To whom would a clinical trial prove inequity?
Accuracy is needed in a trial. Ethics are required.
Some should note that Tourettes Syndrome is identified using behavioral sciences and is both genetic and environmentally linked, as opposed to "social". It is also a sporadic condition as far as symptoms and would not have been "proven" using the Randi Methodology.
Again, that is stating that psychic powers are "skills" along the lines of throwing a football, as opposed to, a behavioral tic like Tourettes. It makes assumptions about what psychic is. We are not in the stage where it can be "proven", only observed and recorded, and he demands "proof" or else be labeled as "fraud".
Personally, I would ignore him on this basis alone. Nothing in life is either or when it comes to humans.
The fact is that there are huge numbers of people making extraordinary claims, who don't want to prove it, because in the process of proving it they'll show themselves up as frauds or deluded.
You are making an assumption.
Nothing is as simple as that. Columbia University studies unusual abilities, the University of Virginia studies them, Stanford studies them, etc. These are not low rent universities. Homeopathy, which he also declares is fraudulent is studied and has a center devoted to alternative therapy at Johns Hopkins.
You are labeling and grouping, and that is not scientific either by your own standards. You have conducted research without protocols, without writing and recording, without a double-blind, and decided upon an answer.
That's why people hate James Randi. He's a threat to their wallet.