James Randi is an idiot!!

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.

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.

You're making grandiose statements about Gorillas and gas giants that have nothing to do with Randi or skeptical thinking in the least bit. In fact it is thanks to skeptical thinking, logic, and science that those things were even discussed at all!

Yes, I missed your point because it went beyond rational thinking. You clearly need to examine statistics and statistical analysis so you can understand why what you propose would yield incorrect results. Of course, you'll just continue to spout nonsense and make excuses for all the hucksters that only continue to damage the reputation of paranormal phenomenon.

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.

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 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.

If you read my original post here, I'm a long time lurker on ATS and no, I'm not affiliated with the JREF or a member of their forums. My point was that, instead of making accusations, do a search on the JREF site for yourself to see the rules and test methodology. Perhaps not as easy as making baseless accusations, right?

If you have evidence that Randi has "ignored" then please go ahead and provide it. Please also make sure that this evidence that would have drastically changed things in the direction of the paranormalist was within the agreement made between the paranormalist and the JREF for that particular test.

It's so easy to fall back and try to rationalize why these people failed or try to blame the skeptics I guess. Easier not to stir your belief system up and continue living with superstition.

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.

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.

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 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.

This is the exact sort of misinformation and misrepresentation that brought this thread to my attention. You make accusations that cannot be proved such as Randi has been hired by the "elite" to do what he does. Just for argument's sake, have you thought out the possibility that perhaps your "elite" would be far more interested in having people believe in hocus pocus? I took a look at the online store section and the proceeds benefit the JREF of which Randi is a paid employee. Calling Randi a hypocrite for being a conjurer is a bit much don't you think? Is he claiming paranormal powers for the tricks he performed? Is he trying to take advantage of those that are unable to understand illusion and other trickery? No, in fact he attempts to educate people so they understand some of the techniques and hopefully not be as easily deceived the next time.

Check the facts again. Randi was a conjurer for some time hence having the name "The Amazing Randi". Is it that hard to Google or is it just too easy to type nonsense? Have a look at this article I found:

www.sfweekly.com...

What about your claim that Randi makes call to arms on his forums? I checked and haven't even seen him on the forum. He must be using his other account called Skeptic4Elites I guess

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 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

Hi 1llum1n471 ,thanks for the reply -can you elaborate on your point a bit more?
Cheers.

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

I brought it up because I thought that was what you were implying with firsthand evidence being sketchy, if not, my apologies.

I'm not sure what you mean by "In science you observe results but you also have data and analysis to back up the observations" as if the data and analysis are not also "observations" in many of the cases. I'll give you an example: behavioral sciences. It is all observation by humans to create the data that is a direct result of the observation then analysis of the data performed, again, by the humans who recorded the results to begin with.

I think a lot of people think they know what "science" is because they have this image in their heads of white lab coats, computers, test tubes, and what not. Some of science is just a guy siting there with a tablet talking to a person and recording results. Perhaps, those results go into a computer if they are itemized surveys, but sometimes not if the volunteer population is small enough.

By the way, I am a scientist. Spent time in a laboratory, have been an IRB member, have written research protocols, have been a co-PI, etc. When doing human research on live humans (which I have admittedly not, but have had to go through the coursework on the Belmont principles since I was working with dead humans) the principle investigators must submit their protocol for a scientific peer review, a statistical review, prior to it even going to an IRB for an additional review to ensure that humans are protected. Nothing that Randi does is "scientific." People sign disclaimers that it is not research. Why? Because if it was the human subjects of this research would have to be "protected" and they are not.

Conducting a "double blind" does not make it scientific unless the double blind is necessary to the protocol. It is just an additional, perhaps even unnecessary hoop he makes people jump through.

What Randi does is put on a show. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that if you aren't selling it as science. Many of Randi's followers tout what he does as "scientific" and science is more boring, less flashy, and filled with a serious of steps that are regimented.

As far as calling debunking scientific, if I am allowed to make the rules I could debunk a lot of scientific facts by challenging the "how" of the research. I could debunk a lot of the sacred cows of science because debunking is not hard to do. Point out how they made an assumption here or there and then make a mountain out of a molehill... would it change "truth" just because it is debunked? Certainly not, and neither should an unscientific exhibition performed by a magician "prove" that these people are hucksters.

reply to post by 1llum1n471


Randi doesn't believe in any psychic powers, but demands to right to define what those non existent powers are.. How far up your own arse do you have to be to think you can get away with that?

Randis idea of what psychic means is wholly based on his own personal prejudice. The fact is, he dare not open up the definition cos he might actually have to pay up. As it is, the chances of anyone winning the money are exactly zero. Not surprising as his contract states that, in plain English not legal jargon,

That Randi has the right to call anything that seems to psychic abilities fake, even if he can't prove it's a fake..

Randi has a vested interest in debunking, or his career is over, so he is happy to engage in the tradition of the bunko artist, which is what he actually is, in order to keep his gravy train on the tracks.

What's more he is an outright liar. His last appearance on British TV, he was roundly booed by both skeptics and believers alike for cheating. He returned home to the USA to announce to his throng that, the trip "Went very well and was a triumph"..

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. Particularly with clinical trials. 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.

Here's an example of how the JREF went about it:

forums.randi.org...

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.

That's why people hate James Randi. He's a threat to their wallet.

reply to post by Off_The_Street

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.

Uri Gellar did some convincing experiments at Stanford Research Institute in the 70's with double blind tests, etc. Yet Randi has hounded Uri incessantly branding him as a fraud. Just because he could replicate the bending spoon (and not so good at it either), that was enough to call Uri a fraud.

My take is that he was trying to ride the coat tail of Uri's success by performing his pathetic version of the spoon bending trick and making a good living from it. From eyewitness accounts, Uri's spoons were still bending even after he had relinquish contact. Something which Randi would not dream of attempting to replicate.

If he was true to his words, he should have awarded Uri the million dollars after the SRI experiments. Most of his antics is really to make money for himself by deriding others. Whatever credit that can be attributed to him in exposing some fakes, it is all undone by his less than honest motives.

Watch the videos of Uri Gellar at SRI and judge for yourself.
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 14-10-2009 by A Conscience]

reply to post by A Conscience


No Geller didn't. He bent some spoons. And we all know science is beyond been fooled, right?

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientists are as fallible as anyone else. That one of the things science has to try to overcome.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

reply to post by jackphotohobby

No Geller didn't. He bent some spoons. And we all know science is beyond been fooled, right?
en.wikipedia.org...

I read your linked article and the only reference I can find is this "This had been the modus operandi of Uri Geller while being tested at Stanford Research Institute; whenever something did not work, he simply did something else instead. The researchers then reported this as a success, when in fact the original test had failed."

The whole article was pertaining to Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research. Yet it sees fit to come up with that throwaway line to try and discredit the SRI experiment without any furthter information as to how that conclusion was reached.

Isn't this typical of the dishonest antics of the skeptics that I have been describing?

What evidence have they provided to justify that statement?

For your information, if you had watch the videos, Uri did bend spoons during one of the experiments but wasn't considered sufficiently controlled according to the stringent protocol that was in place. Nevertheless, he was more than impressive in the other tests.

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 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.

Okay, once more...

The scientific method has been touted and I have yet to see a clear understanding of what that method is. Evidence and "proof" are used synonymously by many skeptics on this site. You may have some evidence, but the evidence has not accumulated to the point where a hypothesis is able to be substantiated. A hypothesis is just a theory based on observational evidence. Research is conducted to see where the evidence goes.

Research requires: appropriate data, appropriate technologies/tools, and analysis appropriate to the research being conducted.

We have data for both the paranormal and the existence of UFOs, we do not have the appropriate tools and technologies to verify either of them. Therefore, no one will be able to prove it to the Randi foundation.

You can only show correlations (which are not causations, not proof, etc) and preliminary findings and statistics because there is no "control" to the study.

Assumptions about a speculative field are constantly refactored, you are assuming that ESP is "on demand" like a skill when it could be sporadic like a seizure or tic. You have established as your measurement for UFOs that they would be motivated like you (landing in central park) as an assumption, but what if their motivations are similar to zoologists?

The scientific method is not The Scientific Method. It is tailored per the type, and many of you either seem to forget this or not know it.


[edit on 14-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

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.

Fairness:

* conformity with rules or standards; "the judge recognized the fairness of my claim"
* ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty
* paleness: the property of having a naturally light complexion
* comeliness: the quality of being good looking and attractive

Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.

Nobody argued double blind is always necessary, you assumed so.

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.

Nonsense. They would have been shown to be measurable under rigorous testing conditions. Because unlike most extraordinary claims Tourettes is measurable. Comparing Tourettes to the kind of nonsense extraordinary claims promoted by charlatans and conmen is my LOL of the day, well done .

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.

No James Randi doesn't say that. The claims are made by the people taking the challenge. They're are asked, in conditions agreed in advance, to prove themselves. It's the people making the claims that say it's a skill like throwing a football. Don't believe me? There's a whole forum full of their claims here.

Yes, for the record they do claim they have skills along the lines of throwing a football. But they can't, or won't, prove it.

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.

What? An assumption that people making extraordinary claims should be treated sceptically? Especially those profiting from such claims? Guilty as charged. Do let me know when your money from the Nigerian Prince turns up.

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.

Yes, and we're all using the wonderful things they created, because they've proven to be so effective. Apologies for the sarcasm but that's risible. One minute you're saying science isn't authoritative, and the next minute you're using science as an authority. Make your mind up. Or is science only right when it agrees with you?

That's why people hate James Randi. He's a threat to their wallet.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Because the evidence, by and large, sucks. It's very difficult for some people to accept that the reason people are sceptical is because of an absence of quality evidence.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jackphotohobby]

www.skepticalinvestigations.org... Found this site, just thought it was worth a read.