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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Let me give you an elementary example of why Randi and is challenge is idiotic.

Lets us compare having a paranormal ability to having the ability to throw a football through the hole of a tire swing. Now on Planet bizzaro nobody has ever seen anyone throw a football through the hole of a tire swing...it is generally accepted that it can not be done. NOW you can do this and you know you can because you do it for fun all the time then one day you see this thing online that says if you can prove it you will get money for it.

So you write to these guys and try to get tested.... After months of stall tactics and correspondence they refer you to another skeptic organization that will test you on their behalf Never mind that the organization they referred you to has nothing to do with the Randi organization and everyone is having a grand ol time playing CYA...you just want to prove that you CAN THROW A FOOTBALL THROUGH THE HOLE OF A TIRE SWING!

So you meet them on their test grounds on the terms you both agreed upon. They give you there football, and you are to throw it through their tire swing. The pressure is on. You throw it through the hole but it scrapes the side of the tire.

It is not a swish.

They declare you a fraud and fake because you can not throw a foot ball through a tire without hitting the side...

Test over and now it is time to put you up onto the website so they can mock you online.

The Whole JREF mind set seems to be centered around making themselves feel better by belittling folks that claim to have a paranormal ability... or even the ability to prove something paranormal like Ghosts, or the Marfa Lights, Folks that believe in those things too get mocked and ridiculed.

A whole SCHOOL of skepticism built on intellectual self satisfaction by denouncing others as opposed to objective open minded research.

The JREF is just an example of sloppy septic skeptics bent on entertaining themselves rather than examining their world with a critical rational eye.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by titorite]




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

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


Science is not predicated by what is "fair", it is the search for truth, and truth is not always "fair".


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.


No, you refuted my statement that double blind is not always necessary in research, hence why I stated it again.



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.


Exactly, under the correct conditions, Tourettes research was able to produce results that were found to be adequate under peer review. They weren't forced to state "why", just observations to the "what". We are still researching Tourettes.


Because unlike most extraordinary


"Extraordinary" is subjective. What is extraordinary for me is not extraordinary for Carl Sagan. What is extraordinary for George Bush is not extraordinary for most humans.


Comparing Tourettes to the kind of nonsense extraordinary claims promoted by charlatans and conmen is my LOL of the day, well done
.


Research starts with assumptions. You assume ESP has to be 100% of the time, for example, in my assumption it is as sporadic and involuntary as say Tourettes. In that case, if the assumption is correct, the same, slow, lengthy behavioral observations would have to occur much like the original Tourettes research.

Have your lol of the day *shrugs* but I think you don't understand how to establish a research project if you see no value that "assumptions" have in structure research or an evaluation.



What? An assumption that people making extraordinary claims should be treated sceptically?


No, not skeptically. Question everything. Ridicule and assumptions are not part of skepticism.


Especially those profiting from such claims? Guilty as charged. Do let me know when your money from the Nigerian Prince turns up.


You are being purposefully snide when all I am calling for is a real look at the process.



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.


No, I've never argued against science. Are you being disingenuous or do you just skim my posts?

I think James Randi is unscientific and biased. That is my argument. Let UVA, Harvard, Yale, or Columbia do this same challenge and you won't see me utter a negative word.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Randi is not an idiot. He is worse ;he is an idiot maker. Scientists, mystics, and those with secret knowlegde avoid his ilk like the plague. There are many people like him in America at this time. They like to arrest people who sell beneficial herbs. They are exactly like the people who burned midwives in order to give doctors more power. He is trying to bait people just in case someone has knowlegde he does not believe they should have. He picks many obvious fakes and obvious delusionals so he can paint the truthful with the same tar brush. He is trying to cover up truths. If he is telling people to not to study lights, you know it is time to visit Marfa in oder to see ball lightning. See the Marfa lights just to make the bitter old man mad.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
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


Science is not predicated by what is "fair", it is the search for truth, and truth is not always "fair".


So having the ability to make judgements about things free from discrimination or dishonesty has nothing to do with it?

It's utterly essential. I don't understand how anyone with even a basic understanding of science could so misunderstand fair in in this context.

You said:


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.


Double blinding reduces bias. Which suggests you have a very limited understanding of what fair means and how it applies to trials, or you're talking nonsense.


No, you refuted my statement that double blind is not always necessary in research, hence why I stated it again.


Again, what you actually said was:


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.


And I said that it was often necessary to ensure fairness. Then you questioned about the meaning of fairness (as quoted above), because getting bogged down in irrelevances suits you.


Exactly, under the correct conditions, Tourettes research was able to produce results that were found to be adequate under peer review. They weren't forced to state "why", just observations to the "what". We are still researching Tourettes.


Again irrelevant. Again lol.


Research starts with assumptions. You assume ESP has to be 100% of the time, for example, in my assumption it is as sporadic and involuntary as say Tourettes. In that case, if the assumption is correct, the same, slow, lengthy behavioral observations would have to occur much like the original Tourettes research.


Do you have any understanding of things like statistical significance?

An effect doesn't have to be right 100% - just be better than chance. Talk about misconstruing!!!

You are welcome to look at actual challenge applications:

forums.randi.org...

You attacked double blindness as a sometime irrelevance because James Randi sometimes uses it.


No, not skeptically. Question everything. Ridicule and assumptions are not part of skepticism.


There are people ripping people off, people given false hope, and it disgusts me.


You are being purposefully snide when all I am calling for is a real look at the process.


No, you're not. What you are doing is displaying wilful ignorance of things like statistical significance, the meaning of fair, and the JREF challenge. There is zero point in me arguing this with you, because you're just going to shift the goal posts on the meaning of things like fair.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


A total fabrication. See the ACTUAL test requirements here:

forums.randi.org...

What you have given is a straw-man argument:

en.wikipedia.org...

And, again there is no point arguing with you. I come here for UFOs, not to argue the meaning of words like fair, or indulge silliness. So rather than bore people any more, or begin to act like a jerk, I'll do the proper thing and give this thread the wide-berth it deserves.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And I don't have any problem with Randi. He may be a bit pretentious at times, but the fact that he insults people who belive that kind of thing doesn't mean he's lost all credibility as a researcher, it just means he's not playing nice.


I think when a researcher "insults people who believe that kind of thing" it demonstrates that they have lost objectivity and therefore definitely have "lost credibility as a researcher". How can you objectively 'research' something with your mind already made up and firmly closed?

Randi isn't objective. His mind is closed IMO. He's a "professional skepetic', which means his ego and sense of identity is heavily invested in skepticism and disbelief, much as a clergyman's sense of identity is invested in the teachings of his religion.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Ok. Thats it! I've always known that Randi was a skeptic of all things paranormal but after recently seeing him on a show about crop circles his extreme bias has lost him all credibility as a balanced researcher. Now I do believe that crop circles are mostly hoaxes, but the insults that he hurls at the UFology community are appauling. He said something along the lines of "the ufo community is pointless. Enthusiasts ought to to something better with their time like get a hobby, collect stamps, spend time with the family. Do anything but study crops and wierd lights in the sky. GET A LIFE."

Don't that piss you off or what? He has lost all credibility as an honest skeptic.


skeptic?
how about sheeple'pileptic


cheers....
starred n flagged......



Originally posted by Off_The_Street
How do you debunk someone who keeps asking for evidence he doesn't get? If you want to debunk him, show him some evidence. He's telling the Spaceship Guys believers to "put up or shut up"!

So put up! That'll "debunk" him!


well.... i suppose he should go and look for some these people and educate himself about the 'true' nature of reality..... oh.... and he can [insert adjectives] his money...... cherio






















posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
All of those look pretty credible. But the one where it sort of looks like a Japanese game show, were the guy is making the animals die or fall asleep looks fake. Does anyone on here know how to speak Japanese?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   




I meant that he was making a type of association fallacy and trying to obscure the argument by bringing Klass up



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
reply to post by titorite
 


A total fabrication. See the ACTUAL test requirements here:

forums.randi.org...

What you have given is a straw-man argument:



??? No what I gave was not a total fabrication. It was an ELEMENTARY Example. I thought I had put it an really simple terms.

It was also a bit of an allegorical story based off of personal experience. I know what the test requirements are all too intimately. I know how they enjoy using stall tactics to brush off folks they consider unworthy of their time. AND for sure I know the judges are biased because the test is not evaluated by independent judges with no vested interest in the outcome rather, the tests are evaluated by the bond holders of the prize....

Again personal experience.

And that is what makes the whole thing idiotic.

As I said before , Aliens could abduct Randi and bring his mom back to life... he would sue someone for illegal cloning and explain away his abduction as hallucination. The I think the guy hates himself, God , and all things he can not explain... and when he can not explain something adequately he makes stuff up and calls it rational when it is anything but.

The man has no credibility in my book... to me he is like the Husband and wife team at Snoops.com. An invalid source.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Victor Zammit is offering a million dollars to anyone who can substantively *disprove* the existence of the afterlife. He's been waiting for Randi's application a good many years now.


www.victorzammit.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
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.

Yes, sorry, I was meaning more along the lines of science and not in the legal sense. I'd probably have to say more along the lines of hard science such as chemistry to be a bit more particular on my use of observation. I'm not sure I am the right person to even attempt defending Randi's (or the JREF's) methodology. Whether they stand up in regards to scientific rigor is something that we could debate forever. From what I've examined on the JREF site and from reading "Flim Flam", I would have to say that Randi does follow a methodology that would be able to reproduce results time and time again whether positive or negative. We have to remember that this is just a challenge to show whether paranormal phenomena exists or not. If it can be demonstrated under such conditions and repeatable then perhaps more traditional scientists would be interested in looking into the phenomenon.

Challenging scientific studies, data, and theories is one of the most beautiful parts of the science and it's framework. This is why science can continue to evolve and grow and not get stuck as it is not based on faith or some inscrutable evidence.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
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"..


Can you get me a direct quote from Randi where he says what you accuse him if? Randi nor the JREF defines what those powers are. The participants that apply for testing are the ones that define what paranormal ability they want to demonstrate. The JREF then works with them on an agreement so both parties understand what is being tested and what would be considered a success. It's not very magical now, is it?

The very fact that Randi put up $10,000 of his own money and has spent an amazing amount of time and effort into seeking out true paranormal phenomena negates your other accusations.

I find it amazing that you are doing the exact sort of thing you claim this man has done. You act out and make accusations that you have yet to provide evidence for. Instead of foaming at the mouth and ranting, please provide evidence or even better go out and do better. Challenge Randi, the JREF, and whoever else you think. We're all grown ups here and any logical thinker welcomes a good challenge.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience
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.




Actually, if you do some research into the whole Geller/Stanford tests you will find so many issues with their methodology you would have a good laugh



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Let me give you an elementary example of why Randi and is challenge is idiotic.

Lets us compare having a paranormal ability to having the ability to throw a football through the hole of a tire swing. Now on Planet bizzaro nobody has ever seen anyone throw a football through the hole of a tire swing...it is generally accepted that it can not be done. NOW you can do this and you know you can because you do it for fun all the time then one day you see this thing online that says if you can prove it you will get money for it.

So you write to these guys and try to get tested.... After months of stall tactics and correspondence they refer you to another skeptic organization that will test you on their behalf Never mind that the organization they referred you to has nothing to do with the Randi organization and everyone is having a grand ol time playing CYA...you just want to prove that you CAN THROW A FOOTBALL THROUGH THE HOLE OF A TIRE SWING!

So you meet them on their test grounds on the terms you both agreed upon. They give you there football, and you are to throw it through their tire swing. The pressure is on. You throw it through the hole but it scrapes the side of the tire.

It is not a swish.

They declare you a fraud and fake because you can not throw a foot ball through a tire without hitting the side...

Test over and now it is time to put you up onto the website so they can mock you online.

The Whole JREF mind set seems to be centered around making themselves feel better by belittling folks that claim to have a paranormal ability... or even the ability to prove something paranormal like Ghosts, or the Marfa Lights, Folks that believe in those things too get mocked and ridiculed.

A whole SCHOOL of skepticism built on intellectual self satisfaction by denouncing others as opposed to objective open minded research.

The JREF is just an example of sloppy septic skeptics bent on entertaining themselves rather than examining their world with a critical rational eye.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by titorite]


Oh, is it time to play the straw man card already?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

So having the ability to make judgements about things free from discrimination or dishonesty has nothing to do with it?


I think I am explaining this wrong.

"Fair" is a "feeling" word. As in, "That call by the ref is unfair!" "How they treat me at work is unfair".

Impartial is what you would see in a laboratory or research context.


It's utterly essential. I don't understand how anyone with even a basic understanding of science could so misunderstand fair in in this context.


And I think you're plucking stray lines and building a straw man. Call it "fair" if you want. I don't care what word you use. How's that for fair?



Double blinding reduces bias.


No, it reduces risk.


Which suggests you have a very limited understanding of what fair means and how it applies to trials, or you're talking nonsense.


I am about to U2U you the research I have been a PI in and the trials I have history with. I absolutely understand how research works because, unlike Randi, I have conducted it, participated in it, and been part of a peer review for other people's research.




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.


And I said that it was often necessary to ensure fairness. Then you questioned about the meaning of fairness (as quoted above), because getting bogged down in irrelevances suits you.


No, it is not irrelevant. My point is that people do not understand research. "Fairness" is something seen in sports, in politics, in life. Research looks for impartiality.

I am not the one choosing to quibble over a word. You can choose "fair" I will say "impartial" and let's leave off, yes?



Exactly, under the correct conditions, Tourettes research was able to produce results that were found to be adequate under peer review. They weren't forced to state "why", just observations to the "what". We are still researching Tourettes.


Again irrelevant. Again lol.


It is not if you irrelevant if you actually understood how important "assumptions" are in research.

IF a sporadic condition had to fit the Randi test of absolutism then certain disease traits and/or behavioral traits would have not been approved for research.

You realize, don't you, that Randi seeks a higher than 90% manifestation for award? If ESP is a spontaneous event and not a "skill" and perhaps triggered by smell, or vibrations, etc. like in animals then they would not pass the scrutiny of his board.


Do you have any understanding of things like statistical significance?


Yes, I do. I don't believe that Randi does.


An effect doesn't have to be right 100% - just be better than chance.


I'm glad you feel that way.



You attacked double blindness as a sometime irrelevance because James Randi sometimes uses it.


Who attacked it? Not me. I have been a an assistant PI on a double blind.

I am referring to occasions where he has lauded "double blind" and/or subjected a university study to it inappropriately.



No, not skeptically. Question everything. Ridicule and assumptions are not part of skepticism.


There are people ripping people off, people given false hope, and it disgusts me.


False hope? I've received no false hope from psychics. The idea of UFOs being true frightens me. I'd be glad to have them disproven and us being a unique planet in the universe.

Randi gives people a false sense of security and shuts down possibilities that deserve to be researched further.



You are being purposefully snide when all I am calling for is a real look at the process.


No, you're not. What you are doing is displaying wilful ignorance of things like statistical significance, the meaning of fair, and the JREF challenge.


Yes, I am. Tell me, if you are so wise in the ways of science, without naming the research specifically how you got funded, approval, and reviewed. I can do this, can you? I've never once said, in fact said otherwise, that statistics are not a part of the research process. I've said that the statistics he imposes are based off of incorrect assumptions, thus creating a flawed methodology. I've said that if an impartial, truly scientific group or school like MIT conducted this challenge you would not hear a peep out of me because I know they would follow a correct approach.

My problem is not with "double blind" tests, it is not with impartiality, it is not with statistical analysis. My problem is with Randi.


There is zero point in me arguing this with you, because you're just going to shift the goal posts on the meaning of things like fair.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jackphotohobby]


Great! Let us not argue further as you are willfully misunderstanding me and hyper-focusing on word choice instead of context and meaning.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
Randi is not an idiot. He is worse ;he is an idiot maker. Scientists, mystics, and those with secret knowlegde avoid his ilk like the plague. There are many people like him in America at this time. They like to arrest people who sell beneficial herbs. They are exactly like the people who burned midwives in order to give doctors more power. He is trying to bait people just in case someone has knowlegde he does not believe they should have. He picks many obvious fakes and obvious delusionals so he can paint the truthful with the same tar brush. He is trying to cover up truths. If he is telling people to not to study lights, you know it is time to visit Marfa in oder to see ball lightning. See the Marfa lights just to make the bitter old man mad.


You're still at it? Scientists "avoid" Randi and other skeptical thinkers "like the plague"? Did you get that from Fox news? Maybe you should take a look at CSICOP and their relationship with many eminent scientists and organizations?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Oh, is it time to play the straw man card already?


So reading comprehension is not important to you? I suggest you read my reply to jackphotohobby. I explained to him that it was not a straw man at all...

I think you should read my reply to him before responding to me again.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Randi gives people a false sense of security and shuts down possibilities that deserve to be researched further.


Not to butt in on the discussion you guys are having, but how does the work that Randi and the JREF do give people a false sense of security or shut down possibilities that deserve to be researched further? I would argue the opposite in fact. Randi spends a great deal of time educating people on some of the methods that these hucksters employ to make us believe there is something paranormal going on. So I would say that he is helping us keep an open mind of all possibilities instead of falling back to our innate belief in superstition.

As far as shutting down possibilities, Randi spends an extraordinary amount of time to look at paranormal phenomena that are usually ignored by mainstream science. If he does find something of interest, I am sure many scientists would be quick to examine his findings.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Oh, is it time to play the straw man card already?


So reading comprehension is not important to you? I suggest you read my reply to jackphotohobby. I explained to him that it was not a straw man at all...

I think you should read my reply to him before responding to me again.


I had not read that response yet, but you answered him with yet another straw man argument about aliens abducting Randi and bringing his mother back to life. Perhaps you should stick to writing fiction?




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join