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 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
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
Comparing Tourettes to the kind of nonsense extraordinary claims promoted by charlatans and conmen is my LOL of the day, well done .
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.
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".
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.
No, you refuted my statement that double blind is not always necessary in research, hence why I stated it again.
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.
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.
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.
No, not skeptically. Question everything. Ridicule and assumptions are not part of skepticism.
You are being purposefully snide when all I am calling for is a real look at the process.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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.
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"..
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.
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]
Originally posted by jackphotohobby
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.
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.
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.
Do you have any understanding of things like statistical significance?
An effect doesn't have to be right 100% - just be better than chance.
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]
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.
Originally posted by 1llum1n471
Oh, is it time to play the straw man card already?
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Randi gives people a false sense of security and shuts down possibilities that deserve to be researched further.
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.