James Randi is a fraud!!

Originally posted by Pimander
The fact is that Psi has already been determined to be real.

Actually, that is just another false claim...

Randi Backs Out of Challenge with Homeopath George Vithoulkas

yet another untruth

www.randi.org...

I believe that a skeptic is one who is willing to entertain notions outside their own realm of experience. I think that Randi and crew do this. Testing for 'psi' has been done for decades, with the paranormal side claiming any inconsistencies or unclear data as "proof" for the existence of said phenomena. Real science begs that all data be thoroughly understood and reliably peer reviewed. It's good to have an open mind, just not one so open that your brain falls out.

Also, homeopathy irritates the living crap out of me. I have personally tested the claims of the homeopaths by deliberately consuming vast quantities of their elixirs...I have experienced no ill effects or symptoms of over-dosing. Bad science is bad science, no science is embarrassing.

This competition not test. Has been running James name into the history books for years. By deferring all judgment to a group or person whether something is true or not is a biased unscientific approach. You can throw all the stats and methods in the world at an experiment but if you are biased which the organization displays clearly through their members comments on their various web pages the experiment is considered tainted. On can say oh but it was a double blind test. Yet when you are dealing with an activity that uses intention to be successful and surround it with adverse intention it is canceled out.

I'm sure the beloved figure head of that religion understands this woah be unto any who should question the methods of this white bearded man.
Personally I find him to be clever and points out the obvious from his perspective. As an illusionist by trade he will always only see a trick being performed. To admit any different would be to question his whole belief system. The culture which has grown up around this clever mans projected reality is a culture of ignorance and bigotry akin in ignorance to the belief systems they attack.

Want to prove me wrong? Try making a constructive comment questioning his methods on one of his Youtube videos. Just give it 2 weeks my point will be made. As I have said he has made quite a big reputation out of the psychic community without them he would be another has been illusionist. Hats off to him he has attained immortality for now for as long as he never gives away that illusive million.

reply to post by spoor

I couldn't care less about the homeopathy thing to be honest. I was just trying to get a response.

I'll deal with the Randi thing first as he is incredibly easy to dismiss and has no credibility. If he doesn't like it he's welcome to try to sue me. I'd nail him in any court any day.

James Randi not a scientist. He is a pseudo-skeptic and a complete liar. It's as simple as that!





However, the Psi thing is a different matter. This I do know about. You're arguing with the wrong guy about this.

The scientist you just dismissed also knows what he is talking about.

Dean Radin, PhD, is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) and Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Psychology at Sonoma State University. His original career track as a concert violinist shifted into science after earning a BSEE degree in electrical engineering, magna cum laude and with honors in physics, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and then an MS in electrical engineering and a PhD in psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. For a decade he worked on advanced telecommunications R&D at AT&T Bell Laboratories and GTE Laboratories.

For over two decades he has been engaged in consciousness research. Before joining the research staff at IONS in 2001, he held appointments at Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and several Silicon Valley think-tanks, including Interval Research Corporation and SRI International, where he worked on a classified program investigating psychic phenomena for the US government.

He is author or coauthor of over 200 technical and popular articles, a dozen book chapters, and several books including the bestselling The Conscious Universe (HarperOne, 1997) and Entangled Minds (Simon & Schuster, 2006).

SOURCE: www.deanradin.com...

The remainder of this post is adapted from a thread where I challenged a pseudo-skeptic to tell me what they would accept as proof of Psi. Of course, they didn't respond!

Some of the studies involving Psi,, especially those used in Radin's meta-analyses, are purposely designed to involve as little subjectivity as possible with machines used throughout to eliminate human error or investigator bias. One example is the autoganzfield which included rigorous precautions against sensory leakage, fraud and many other factors which were agreed with the leading sceptic in the field Ray Hyman. Hyman publicly agreed that the experimental conditions and the type of statistical analysis prior to the experiments. A positive outcome would force sceptics to admit something interesting was happening IF THEY ARE OPEN TO GENUINE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

Guess what readers? The outcome confirmed the findings of the previously 'debunked' studies.

Did Hyman admit that telepathy is a reality? No, as a sceptic he quite rightly admitted that although the results were,"intriguing," that if other independent labs could reproduce the results "with the same attention to rigorous methodology, then parapsychology may indeed have finally captured its elusive quarry." see Hyman (1991). Comment. Statistical Science 6:389-92. So if this could be repeated we have our quarry according to the WORLDS LEADING SCEPTIC IN THE FIELD?

Guess what readers? The results have been repeated and shown to be reproducible by a series of studies by an independent lab.

I will allow the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether this constitutes extraordinary evidence or not.

Most of the so called 'sceptical' studies which claim to debunk simply demand rigour that is NOT required in other fields. Whether you view the above example as conclusive or not, what it does do is illustrate that the so called debunking is frequently just so called sceptics demanding that levels of statistical proof and rigour always go beyond the levels of previous studies. This is of course an impossible demand to meet and the goal posts will always be moved out of reach.

It is interesting to note that many of these demands are made by non-scientists or by scientists whose own work could not come close to meeting the levels of rigour they claim to require of parapsychologists.

reply to post by Pimander


I am willing to see all sides in a conversation about paranormal capabilities. I know that Noetic Science is something that Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut I respect, gave birth to. I will read more about these experiments and tell you what I think.

Good post.

I still like Randi and respect him as an author, though

reply to post by Pimander


Could you post a link to the relevant experiment? As a true skeptic, I will read it with an open mind and judge it on merit.

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
Also, homeopathy irritates the living crap out of me. I have personally tested the claims of the homeopaths by deliberately consuming vast quantities of their elixirs...I have experienced no ill effects or symptoms of over-dosing. Bad science is bad science, no science is embarrassing.

I must admit, as a pharmacologist (by academic training) that I have seen little evidence of homeopathy working. I have heard about a couple of interesting examples over the years but nothing proven so the skeptic in me says, "where is the evidence?"

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
I still like Randi and respect him as an author, though

I don't deny that he is a clever writer. However, he is a liar and I don't approve of what he does.

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
Could you post a link to the relevant experiment? As a true skeptic, I will read it with an open mind and judge it on merit.

What, a real skeptic on ATS? I was starting to think I was the only one.

Evidence of Psi. Because it is a series of experiments in more than one lab, it is better to read The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin. That book is effectively a review of the evidence by a leading researcher in the field. Obviously his resume speaks for itself (see above). You might find the books bibliography, which can be accessed on the site, useful.

A good paper to read would possibly be the one below. It is pretty technical so without the background you may be better off with the book. I hope it isn't too dry.

Psychological Bulletin 1994. Bem and Honerton. Does Psi Exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer.

Or watch this: "Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin (Google Tech Talks Video - embedding disabled)

reply to post by NuminousCosmos

Oh, this is the video which is an excellent talk by Dean Radin to some of the Google staff. If you still think there is no evidence of Psi after watching this then there really is no hope for you.

Google Tech Talks: Science and the Taboo of Psi with Dean Radin (YouTube Video with embedding disabled so you'll have to follow the link)

Randi comes across as a cantankerous old fart at times,almost an uber-sceptic, but anyone who exposes fraudsters and charlatans like Uri Geller are all right with me.

Originally posted by wonhunlo

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by wonhunlo

 

You should redact any personal info and post it, I imagine a lot of people would be interested in seeing it.

It just said that because I was not a pro medium or celebrity, they had no interest. I wanted to be tested against a random number generator. So a cheap test. Kinda "remote influencing". Anyway, it's all true. -------------------

Oh really?

Well I got a letter too. It says that I'm the true king of the universe, and in 2012 I'll take my rightful polace upon the space throne, but in the meantime I have to gather as many blackberries as I can. Don't ask me why, I didn't write the letter. Anyway, its all true.

A more elaborate answer is, psi has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments

Pounds per square inch? Sure, the rate of the air travelling into my tire can be measured, no one is disputing that

Anyways, what are you talking about when you say "psi" and can you point me to these experiments?

Thanks.

reply to post by GringoViejo

If you're interested why don't you look it up. If you don't know what I mean by psi you won't understand the papers anyway. Don't pretend you know better when you don't know about the experiments either.

If you'd bothered to read the thread you would have already been pointed in the direction of a number of experiments.

ETA: Randi is still a liar even if you try to change the subject.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

If you're interested why don't you look it up. If you don't know what I mean by psi you won't understand the papers anyway. Don't pretend you know better when you don't know about the experiments either.

If you'd bothered to read the thread you would have already been pointed in the direction of a number of experiments.

ETA: Randi is still a liar even if you try to change the subject.

edit on 17/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

If you'd bothered to read my response you'd know I didn't change the subject, you brought up psi, I asked about it, you got all pissy for some reason.

Now, you say if I don't understand psi then I won't understand the papers, why not just explain it like I asked. I know what pounds per square inch is, but I know this isn't what you're talking about, hence the joke and question. Then, as if you haven't met your rudeness quota for the day, you assume I'm pretending to know better than the experiments, when I'm the one asking you about them. I wouldn't ask if I already knew. All I'm looking for is a definition, jeeze.

Also, that's great that you think Randi is a liar, I never said you were wrong.

reply to post by GringoViejo

Sorry, I'm a bit tired for this.

If you watch this, Radin gives a definition of psi and runs through some of the evidence. If that isn't enough then drop me a line and I'll get back to you after I've slept.

Google Tech Talks: Science and the Taboo of Psi with Dean Radin (YouTube Video with embedding disabled so you'll have to follow the link)

I hope you enjoy it.

reply to post by Pimander


I'm tired of not being able to stream video at work, especially because 90% of my work is on a computer.

[pipe dream]Someday, when I'm in charge of this company, streaming video will be allowed so I don't ever have to ask for a description of a video or a definition of a term that may be used in a video. [/pipe dream]

I'm assuming you understand what psi is, so can you just give me a short definition? Even a gross generalization will do.

The reason many people cant repeat their paranormal powers in a laboratory is that those powers dont actually come from the people who claim them. Both skeptics like Randi and the Paranormal-crowd are in darkness about what these powers are all about in my humble opinion.

reply to post by GringoViejo

It is the 23rd letter of the Greek alphabet. Ψ, ψ.

The study of psi is the study of "psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition.) You could say the study of aspects of the mind that don't appear explainable within the current framework of Western science - although strictly speaking that may not be true.

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Veeery Interesting... "

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The reason many people cant repeat their paranormal powers in a laboratory is that those powers dont actually come from the people who claim them. Both skeptics like Randi and the Paranormal-crowd are in darkness about what these powers are all about in my humble opinion.

Some of these "powers" do appear to derive from the individual although possibly not in a completely local way, as you say.

However, it is simply not true that Psi abilities have not been reproduced in lab conditions. They have but not in as overt a way as they are frequently experienced by most of us at times in our everyday lives and certainly not on the level that many sensitives experience.

Julian Isaacs explains on way of looking at the problem here.



Also Dean Radin explains an alternative theory starting at 11:40 in the following video.

Google Tech Talks: Science and the Taboo of Psi with Dean Radin (YouTube Video with embedding disabled so you'll have to follow the link)


ETA: If you are interested in Psi then Radin's talk is a must view. The guy knows his stuff.

Originally posted by Elmer_Dinkley
Randi comes across as a cantankerous old fart at times,almost an uber-sceptic, but anyone who exposes fraudsters and charlatans like Uri Geller are all right with me.

What, even when they tell lies about a legitimate scientists work. Watch the Sheldrake clip above and tell me you don't believe that.

If you care about the truth then people like Randi do NOT help. The guy is does much more harm than good. He has come close to convincing a generation that humans are less than they are. How sad is that?