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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
Even as leader of the expedition, even if one was so biased, he could not hide the truth from carbon dating and other methods used.


You cannot carbon date the Sphinx. Weathering is disputable. Ooops! Being scientific again...


He would clearly be found as a liar and removed from academia or the research field once the next investigation team was sent in.


Not necessarily. Sometimes a reputation precedes an individual.


That's what you don't see. These paranormalists can be tested over and over again by different organizations. There is no magical blacklist.


Other organizations don't waste their time treating the quest for knowledge like a circus sideshow with "prizes". They would stuff you in the middle of a study somewhere. Many of the people who take his stupid challenge seek accolades that they won't get in legitimate studies of phenomenon.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
derstand I was not implying you had a superstitious mindset, but be that as it may you want to accuse me of being full of myself.


Stating your amusement at the thoughts and arguments of others is why I implied you were acting "full of yourself". I don't laugh at your beliefs. I may challenge them, but I don't laugh.



It does not matter what lab or what researcher is used, they all can fall into a trap. Benveniste comes to mind.


And JREF comes to mind.

Honestly, there are reasons why schools like MIT, JHU, etc have good reputations. They put out good, solid, reviewed work. The world has benefited from them. James Randi can saw a lady in half and spot a con artist. That does not, to me, rank up there with creating a bionic arm.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Once again, I could not include your comment as it was too long. You first paragraph led up to the idea that perception is everything and I must disagree. Perception can be easily influenced. If we lived by perception alone we would still believe that Santa Claus was delivering presents to us every Christmas morning. You cannot deny that there are forces of the universe that existed before man was capable of perceiving them, such as gravity. Thanks to science and education, we've had massive changes in our perceptions or do you think we're still walking on a giant turtle?

If the JREF has an issue with Randi then by all means they can attempt to muzzle him or boot him out. CSICOP wanted to muzzle Randi and Randi refused and stepped down. It seems to me that the JREF is OK with Randi's activities. If you don't like it, you don't have to support their activities. Same with any other organization. The difference comes in not supporting it and accusing it of things without providing evidence. You're pretty close to my Dad's name, I do wonder if you have a spark of psychic in you


You did say Randi was responsible for the fund so I just cleared up his position and the state of the fund. Just to make sure any others following the thread would understand as well.

If your sour on Randi from what you've seen in the past, that's OK. People can evolve and gain better understanding. That's one of the strengths of human beings. I'd like to see some of the material that soured you though. If you can find them, please post them as I would be most interested.

I never made an implication that observation is not part of the scientific method and that would just ludicrous. I said that observation alone is not used as evidence. Would anyone expect such a thing? Would you not expect some sort of data to be measured as well into to have quantifiable results?

Why would anyone file a lawsuit when they have not been injured? You yourself may not have been injured but those that have been tested and claim some insidious plot can. If you are so interested in these cases then you can aid in the investigation and gather evidence against the JREF or take it to an organization that is interested in looking at this evidence.

How do you know what assumptions Randi has made? Are you basing that off jokes that he makes or comments made after the fact? All you and I can do is make assumptions about his assumptions.

About the labs. I already made the point that any respectable lab and researcher can succumb to issues. I provided you but one famous example.

Did the fanfare surrounding other famous researchers like Einstein or his sexcapades have anything to do with his impartiality? As a member of a conspiracy site like ATS, did it have some effect on your impartiality when performing your studies. Of course not.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
reply to post by TallWhites
 
I do not know what he believes. What he says and thinks are probably not the same thing. I just know what he wants other people to do. He wants them to recieve chemo therapy, ignore unusual lights, and stop worshipping or believing in a higher power. Sounds like advice from an enemy. Some of these hard core athiests are just control freaks. A spiritual person is harder to break. Randi probably knows more about the occult than most of the posters here put together. He probably is only interested in destroying what could be competition in his eyes.



You make accusations and claims without any evidence to back them up. It's really hard to follow an argument like that.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
Even as leader of the expedition, even if one was so biased, he could not hide the truth from carbon dating and other methods used.


You cannot carbon date the Sphinx. Weathering is disputable. Ooops! Being scientific again...


You cannot carbon date a Sphinx? So you're saying they can't date the rocks, other building material, or materials found on site?


Other organizations don't waste their time treating the quest for knowledge like a circus sideshow with "prizes". They would stuff you in the middle of a study somewhere. Many of the people who take his stupid challenge seek accolades that they won't get in legitimate studies of phenomenon.


Yes, they might not have the flare but what does that have to do with the work once again? You're spot on about those that take the test though



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Once again, I could not include your comment as it was too long. You first paragraph led up to the idea that perception is everything and I must disagree. Perception can be easily influenced.


Yes, and??? That was my point! Why having a good reputation is important--because it informs every thought and decision people make regarding you.


If we lived by perception alone we would still believe that Santa Claus was delivering presents to us every Christmas morning.


*pulls covers over head*

You are missing my point. I know this.


You cannot deny that there are forces of the universe that existed before man was capable of perceiving them, such as gravity. Thanks to science and education, we've had massive changes in our perceptions or do you think we're still walking on a giant turtle?


I'm not talking about whether or not I perceive the world is flat and whether my perception means it is actually flat. It does not. Perception doesn't govern truth. BUT if I believe the world is flat it does govern my actions. I probably won't sail around the world for fear I might fall off.

If people believe Randi is biased they will be less likely to go to him for verification, as opposed to say, MIT, Columbia, etc.


If the JREF has an issue with Randi then by all means they can attempt to muzzle him or boot him out. CSICOP wanted to muzzle Randi and Randi refused and stepped down. It seems to me that the JREF is OK with Randi's activities.


I agree, hence why I am grouping JREF with Randi.


If you don't like it, you don't have to support their activities.


And I don't.


Same with any other organization. The difference comes in not supporting it and accusing it of things without providing evidence.


Take that belief system back to JREF and see that it is equally self-applied and you may have some good reform on your hands.



If your sour on Randi from what you've seen in the past, that's OK. People can evolve and gain better understanding.


I agree. I said that someone must have educated him because he's gotten better.


I'd like to see some of the material that soured you though. If you can find them, please post them as I would be most interested.
I'll try to find a youtube and post tomorrow. I think it was the Penn and Teller BS episode where he spouted less than required description.



I never made an implication that observation is not part of the scientific method and that would just ludicrous. I said that observation alone is not used as evidence. Would anyone expect such a thing?
Observation alone is used often as evidence in preliminary stages. See, this is my point. There are very stages of research. Ignoring the appropriate "stage" is also harmful.

Einstein said all knowledge starts from experience and ends with it. We start observing, then we observe some more, then do a little more observing and maybe a little more, and then we form a hypothesis. Once we have the hypothesis we ask: How do I "prove" it? Do I have enough data? Where do I get the data? What is my "population"? Do I have the right tools? What should my statistics be, etc.


Would you not expect some sort of data to be measured as well into to have quantifiable results?


*sigh*

Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. I've said this over and over.

*cries into handkerchief, frustrated*


Why would anyone file a lawsuit when they have not been injured? You yourself may not have been injured but those that have been tested and claim some insidious plot can. If you are so interested in these cases then you can aid in the investigation and gather evidence against the JREF or take it to an organization that is interested in looking at this evidence.


Did you read where I said there is a complicity in going through JREF? These people and Randi, as well, seek attention. If they were serious about science they would go to a credible university or institution.


How do you know what assumptions Randi has made? Are you basing that off jokes that he makes or comments made after the fact? All you and I can do is make assumptions about his assumptions.


I will try and find the video that put me through the roof on his ridiculousness.


About the labs. I already made the point that any respectable lab and researcher can succumb to issues. I provided you but one famous example.


As can an organization like JREF, should we thereby throw out all babies with all dirty bath waters? I will support an organization with a successful track record until it's "statistics" change.

By the way, you just used a logical fallacy. The one example is just that. One example, not indicative of MIT, JHU, Carnegie Mellon, etc.


Did the fanfare surrounding other famous researchers like Einstein or his sexcapades have anything to do with his impartiality?


It wouldn't affect his theories on time travel, but I wouldn't allow him to speak for sexual propriety.


As a member of a conspiracy site like ATS, did it have some effect on your impartiality when performing your studies. Of course not.


Apples and oranges. An analogy would be if I tell you I am a liberal and then take apart Cheney, or if I told you I was a conservative and then pick on Barak's economic policies.

I think its late and both our arguments are getting sloppy.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


You've already pointed out your belief about JREF's methods so I'm not sure where we can go from there. I'm not sure about your ranking system as well. I would find it hard to rank things in terms if importance as you have. Every small bit that helps scientific progression is a massive leap for mankind.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 


Its not ranking, it is subject matter expertise. I wouldn't question Randi in how best to saw a woman in half or how to pull an Ace of Spades out of his sleeve. I think he's probably very good at that. I'd call him an SME in illusion. He is not an SME in research.

That's what I meant.

Anyway, fun sparring. Goodnight.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 
No, I'm making observations based on very bizarre behavior of Randy's. The result is the observations are bizarre also. It is my opinion that he is rude to the people he is trapping. Issuing a reward for proof of something he claims not to believe in and then humiliating those who try to provide him proof is bizarre. Telling people they will die if they do not recieve medical treatment he wants them to receive is menacing. I think he knows what he is doing when he does this stuff. It will always be conjecture why Randy does this stuff only Randy really knows why he does such stuff. By doing what he does publicly, he is inviting speculation.



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

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
You cannot carbon date a Sphinx? So you're saying they can't date the rocks, other building material, or materials found on site?


Rocks do not contain the necessary atmospheric gases and the sphinx is made from rock. Organic materials in the cracks could possibly be verified and contain the necessary info *yawn*, but weathering is a better source. *yawn*

Wanted to clear that up before bed. And, yes, I do have experience with this.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Agreed, we've been going at this for hours already and have not really advanced anywhere. I would like to say that your argument that if those that wish to be tested thought Randi was biased that they would attempt to go to MIT or other institutions, you give the reason in your response. I still believe that Randi and his organization are looking for provable paranormal phenomenon and as I said earlier, this cuts the signal to noise ratio a bit so resources can be better allocated to looking at real phenomena and not frauds. I think the points made about the scientific method and processes are understood between the two of us. My mention of Einstein was an example and not meant to be an association fallacy. The fact remains that his work is not affected by the other things he does in life. Randi's work for the JREF and the skeptical community should not be judged by his comedic showman personality.

Just saw your goodnight. Thanks for the good debate



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
You cannot carbon date a Sphinx? So you're saying they can't date the rocks, other building material, or materials found on site?


Rocks do not contain the necessary atmospheric gases and the sphinx is made from rock. Organic materials in the cracks could possibly be verified and contain the necessary info *yawn*, but weathering is a better source. *yawn*

Wanted to clear that up before bed. And, yes, I do have experience with this.


Yes, understood. I am saying that there are ways to get a date from any of the available material on site. There is a good possibility given time and a good team. I'm sorry I was being a bit vague but I didn't think it was necessary to go into full details rather just say there are possibiities to date the Sphinx. Goodnight



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by eradown
 


eradown, you can read some of the other comments in the discussion as I think they cover much of what you say and some of the responses to them.



It will always be conjecture why Randy does this stuff only Randy really knows why he does such stuff. By doing what he does publicly, he is inviting speculation.


You're right. We're just spectators for the most part. As long as we keep an open mind and are willing to learn then we can be the true winner in all of this. As far as Randi doing it publicly, I'd have to say that's just part of the show. It's sort of like Chef Ramsay, you either love him or hate him but that doesn't affect the quality of his food


[edit on 14-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTerminator
 


i really like james randi . . .

what he said was a bit imprudent BUT i can't blame him or get mad at him.

He's never seen a UFO and has skepticism running through his veins.

chasing crop circles and weird lights? i agree, probably a waste of time. But to berate the entire UFO community because you don't believe in something? bad form.

Most of the time he's right, this time he's wrong. Cut the guy a break!

[edit on 10/14/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 



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


Obviously you have already done the research. Why not do us all a favour and post it here. I stand to be convinced one way or the other.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
take a break guys......





posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 



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


Obviously you have already done the research. Why not do us all a favour and post it here. I stand to be convinced one way or the other.


I assume you are referring to the work by Targ and Puthoff, right? These tests were the ones I referred to. I'm a bit too tired to find more internet resources but if you can take a look at

- see chapter 13 of C.E.M. Hansel's The Search for Psychic Power: ESP and Parapsychology Revisited. (Prometheus Books, 1989) : amzn.com...

- see chapters 2, 3, and 13 of David Marks's The Psychology of the Psychic, (Prometheus Books. 2000) : amzn.com...

- There is an entire chapter dedicated to these two in Randi's Flim Flam as well titled "The Laurel and Hardy of Psi" : amzn.com...

Other tidbits on Targ and Puthoff:

- One of their work was originally published in Nature episode 274. I found an online abstract here: www.nature.com... Notice the end part "We have carried out duplicate experiments, but our results do not verify their conclusions." We as in Nature and their as in Targ-Puthoff

- JSTOR archive: www-stat.stanford.edu... You can see a nice discussion including criticism of Targ and Puthoff's processes.

I hope this is a good start for you


[edit on 15-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   




Double blinding reduces bias.

No, it reduces risk.


By definition, double blind tests are designed to reduce or eliminate bias in the results. It's a way to respond to your worry that any JREF bias could influence the outcome of the test.



Randi has fooled people into believing that his credentials as a magician make him an SME on the ways of science.


No, Randi's credentials make him an SME on the ways of deception not science. In fact, Randi specifically differentiates himself from scientists.

Regarding the eagerness to support research universities, it's important to understand how often scientists have been fooled or have engaged in deception themselves. I would be just as likely to call out the bias for a psi researcher as a psi critic. What is unfortunate is that more than a handful of psi researchers have been duped by trickery, whether due to their lack of training in identifying deception or by their own wish fulfillment (SPR scientists fooled by children for six years, the Project Alpha Experiment, etc). Still more unfortunate are the psi researchers who have outright lied and conducted biased tests in order to achieve their desired results (Harold E. Puthoff, Russell Targ, Walter Levy, S. G. Soal, Helmut Schmidt, and so on).

What is admirable, in my opinion, are the scientists, psychologists, and even media who employ people like Randi for a second opinion when they encounter a self-proclaimed paranormalist with abilities they cannot readily explain to ensure trickery is not the simple explanation. On that note, I still cheer at Uri Geller getting called out by Johnny Carson, with Randi's aid. Here's the video in case anyone is still convinced that Uri Geller is a spoon-bender.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by DaTerminator
 


i really like james randi . . .

what he said was a bit imprudent BUT i can't blame him or get mad at him.

He's never seen a UFO and has skepticism running through his veins.

chasing crop circles and weird lights? i agree, probably a waste of time. But to berate the entire UFO community because you don't believe in something? bad form.

Most of the time he's right, this time he's wrong. Cut the guy a break!

[edit on 10/14/2009 by JPhish]


What could you possibly like about James Randi. He is one of my most despised people on the planet. The man is a fraud and a con artist.

And what is this crap about "Most of the time he's right". James Randi has hardly ever been right. He's already been caught out when he was part of CSCIOP deliberately hiding data about a paranormal investigation into the Mars Effect that would have proven the skeptics wrong. Instead CSICOP hid the evidence and allowed the scientific community to believe the skeptics were right.

Even when Randi was questioned about it... he said "We just hoped it would go away and nobody would notice". What a disgraceful excuse for a human.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baklava





Double blinding reduces bias.

No, it reduces risk.


By definition, double blind tests are designed to reduce or eliminate bias in the results. It's a way to respond to your worry that any JREF bias could influence the outcome of the test.



Randi has fooled people into believing that his credentials as a magician make him an SME on the ways of science.


No, Randi's credentials make him an SME on the ways of deception not science. In fact, Randi specifically differentiates himself from scientists.

Regarding the eagerness to support research universities, it's important to understand how often scientists have been fooled or have engaged in deception themselves. I would be just as likely to call out the bias for a psi researcher as a psi critic. What is unfortunate is that more than a handful of psi researchers have been duped by trickery, whether due to their lack of training in identifying deception or by their own wish fulfillment (SPR scientists fooled by children for six years, the Project Alpha Experiment, etc). Still more unfortunate are the psi researchers who have outright lied and conducted biased tests in order to achieve their desired results (Harold E. Puthoff, Russell Targ, Walter Levy, S. G. Soal, Helmut Schmidt, and so on).

What is admirable, in my opinion, are the scientists, psychologists, and even media who employ people like Randi for a second opinion when they encounter a self-proclaimed paranormalist with abilities they cannot readily explain to ensure trickery is not the simple explanation. On that note, I still cheer at Uri Geller getting called out by Johnny Carson, with Randi's aid. Here's the video in case anyone is still convinced that Uri Geller is a spoon-bender.

www.youtube.com...


And how do you feel about James Randi being part of CSICOP when they deliberately falsified scientific data. Is he still your hero? or are you just happy to ignore he is a fraud.

Just like his million dollar challenge is a fraud.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join