What do you make of this then?

How about this then? a fake Monty Python sketch somehow seems just exactly right for a debunking of homoeopathy...
 
Equally entertaining.

From the article...

Randi is probably best known for his infamous million-dollar challenge to "any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind" under what Randi refers to as "satisfactory observing conditions."

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication." If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely. His "challenge" is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist.
 
Last edited:
“<< All the skeptics I've debated said that the SRI tests were totally discredited and debunked already. Is this true? >>

Not true at all. They just quote Randi and his pronouncements, e.g., in his book Flim Flam. In Flim Flam, he gives something like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. (He did not.)

In case one thinks that it was just a case of our opinions vs. his opinions, we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: He said that in our Nature paper we verified Geller's metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He said that a film of the Geller experiment made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us and we just put his name on it. We showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make the film. Etc., etc.

Hal Puthoff”
 
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

&#8220;James Randi - a Conjurer Attempts to Debunk Research on Animals

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.&#8221;
 
Randi doesn't have to demand a double blind scientific experiment in order to give away his million dollars. Through his own choice he's setting the bar much lower yet still the prize is unclaimed.
 
Stratman said:
Randi doesn't have to demand a double blind scientific experiment in order to give away his million dollars. Through his own choice he's setting the bar much lower yet still the prize is unclaimed.
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't, but the point is he claims his challenge is strict science and it is not. It seems more like an opportunity to boast and make fun of people.
 
Having had a feeling of a 'presence', had a medium tell me things that they would never know and an uncertain mind on afterlife, I still can't help but feel that the mind is a clever little thing. The power of your brain is beyond normal thinking, here is a link to how your brain sees or interprets things different to your eyes.

Is this what happens when we see a spirit/orb/movement? Does the brain relate something ethereal and twist it to suit? The supernatural is unexplained in facts probably because it doesn't exist in reality, only in the minds of those open to see it :shrug:

Phil
 
The23rdman said:
Equally entertaining.

From the article...

Randi is probably best known for his infamous million-dollar challenge to "any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind" under what Randi refers to as "satisfactory observing conditions."

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication." If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely. His "challenge" is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist.
Click to expand...




OK, let's leave Randi, despite the considerable number of people who have taken his challenge and shown a 100% failure rate, who you dismiss (are you saying that all of these were rigged?); can you point to one--just one-- example of a double blind test conducted by an independent judge, which was then replicated, and which showed any psychic activity? If Randi is suppressing results that show psychic phenomena do exist, why are the results not published elsewhere? Or is there a world-wide conspiricy to prevent 'the truth' (oo er!) from coming our?
 
Last edited:
jon ryan said:
OK, let's leave Randi, despite the considerable number of people who have taken his challenge and shown a 100% failure rate, who you dismiss (are you saying that all of these were rigged?); can you point to one--just one-- example of a double blind test conducted by an independent judge, which was then replicated, and which showed any psychic activity? If Randi is suppressing results that show psychic phenomena do exist, why are the results not published elsewhere? Or is there a world-wide conspiricy to prevent 'the truth' (oo er!) from coming our?
Click to expand...

Jon, you're missing the point. Firstly you've conveniently ignored Sheldrake's work and then there is the work or Russell and Targ, but even despite this not having the evidence to hand does not disprove something. Any real scientist and zetetic remains open and in awe of the universe rather than just dismissing. You can't just conveniently brush Dean Radin aside for not having scientific training that you deem relevant and then champion Randi who is equally untrained and seemingly much less ethical.

I'm not here to prove the existence of anything because I cannot do that. What I am is an interested researcher who knows through personal experience (and I've only given you a taste) that the world we live I'm does not fit neatly into a double blind test or a nice little reductionist box. It is full of mystery that we still cannot fathom and the only way to evolve with genuine science is the study without expectations.
 
phil8139 said:
Having had a feeling of a 'presence', had a medium tell me things that they would never know and an uncertain mind on afterlife, I still can't help but feel that the mind is a clever little thing. The power of your brain is beyond normal thinking, here is a link to how your brain sees or interprets things different to your eyes.

Is this what happens when we see a spirit/orb/movement? Does the brain relate something ethereal and twist it to suit? The supernatural is unexplained in facts probably because it doesn't exist in reality, only in the minds of those open to see it :shrug:

Phil
Click to expand...

Phil, I agree. The most important lesson we can learn is that what we see with our eyes open and closed is the same thing - our brains programs in operation.
 
But above you quote someone who says that proper testing is necessary. Now you seem to be saying that personal experience counts as proof!

All I'm asking you to do is point to a single properly conducted, repeatable test that demonstrates any form of psychic activity. Can you do that?

I agree absolutely that pure,open-ended research is one of the best forms of science. But claimed results must be independently and repeatedly replicable if they are to have any credibility.
 
jon ryan said:
But above you quote someone who says that proper testing is necessary. Now you seem to be saying that personal experience counts as proof!

All I'm asking you to do is point to a single properly conducted, repeatable test that demonstrates any form of psychic activity. Can you do that?

I agree absolutely that pure,open-ended research is one of the best forms of science. But claimed results must be independently and repeatedly replicable if they are to have any credibility.
Click to expand...

Misreading me, Jon. I didn't say anything about proof. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You've failed to research the scientists I've mentioned at all. This is obviously going nowhere so I suggest we leave it here and enjoy our Sunday.
 
jon ryan said:
All I'm asking you to do is point to a single properly conducted, repeatable test that demonstrates any form of psychic activity. Can you do that?
Click to expand...

The23rdman said:
Misreading me, Jon. I didn't say anything about proof. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You've failed to research the scientists I've mentioned at all. This is obviously going nowhere so I suggest we leave it here and enjoy our Sunday.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a firm 'no' then, and we can agree that there is no proof for psychic ability.

Have a nice Sunday!
 
You are an incredible piece of work. I've put you on to several scientists who you have dismissed. You've put up Randi and his joke of a test as a proof against paranormal activity and you seem not to understand scientific method.

Have you heard of Bell's Theorem? You do know what a theorem is, yes? Well, it has been refuted and validated in different tests over time yet a theorem it remains.

I'm not sure what "no evidence" means to you but it looks a lot like you are using it as a badge.
 
Last edited:
Bell's Theorem? "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with anything?

All I'm asking for is a reference to some, any, piece of work that demonstrates psychic activity. All you have offered is anecdote and opinion. Citing people who you say are scientists is the classic straw man argument, mixed with an appeal to authority. You are saying that because I have not heard of these people, I cannot possibly have any argument.

All I'm asking you to do is point to a single, credible example of psychic activity, and you cannot.

'No evidence' means that there is nothing to feasibly demonstrate the probability that your argument may be correct. No-one can prove that gravity exists, but the evidence is incontrovertible. Not only can no-one prove that psychic powers exist, the evidence is virtually non existent.

This is why I have asked, a number of times, for you to offer up a single example of a proper experiment that demonstrates, time and again, the existence of psychic power. A proper experiment being one that can be replicated independently and repeatedly - that is roughly the bar that has to be jumped in real science.
 
The relevance is that you seem to think that a study that hasn't been re-tested and confirmed has no validity. Actually, Bell's Theorem does appear to have some relevance anyway.

Jon, again you are missing something vital. Why would I need to provide you with proof of anything when I do not believe in anything paranormal? I have experienced stuff that makes me wonder and I do not discount the existence of non-local events affecting consensual reality. That is a very different thing.

Unless you are willing to study the work of Puthoff and Targ, Sheldrake and Radin (who I've already linked to) we are at an impasse. You might want to check out the work of Persinger too.
 
The23rdman said:
The relevance is that you seem to think that a study that hasn't been re-tested and confirmed has no validity. Actually, Bell's Theorem does appear to have some relevance anyway.

Jon, again you are missing something vital. Why would I need to provide you with proof of anything when I do not believe in anything paranormal? I have experienced stuff that makes me wonder and I do not discount the existence of non-local events affecting consensual reality. That is a very different thing.

Unless you are willing to study the work of Puthoff and Targ, Sheldrake and Radin (who I've already linked to) we are at an impasse. You might want to check out the work of Persinger too.
Click to expand...

So, you don't believe in the paranormal, and I don't believe in the paranormal. Therefore we agree. Good.
 
jon ryan said:
So, you don't believe in the paranormal, and I don't believe in the paranormal. Therefore we agree. Good.
Click to expand...

Do you put any stock at all in anything I said in my op? Do you dismiss out of hand all anecdotal evidence? Do you think no evidence means there is no paranormal?

And will you read the links I sent in my last post?
 
Puthoff & Targ's methodology was totally slated from that link you offered. I had a look at Sheldrake's page of experiments but again as they involve 'people you know' then they're flawed immediately. The audio one might be independent enough but you'd have to be certain there is no cheating going on and that the choice of clip was properly random and there were enough choices to make it a proper test of intuition not statistics.

Most of these ESP researchers use sloppy methods. That's their problem. If they used proper scientific experimental methods then they show diddly squit. They show less paranormal behaviour than D Brown esq shows regularly... I actually think he should go after Randi's million dollars ;)

The Radin research I have no idea as it is all stats and random numbers and I have the feeling any positive correlations are a product of statistical phenomena or experimental design failure.

It's a shame this is bunk too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto
 
The23rdman said:
Do you put any stock at all in anything I said in my op? Do you dismiss out of hand all anecdotal evidence? Do you think no evidence means there is no paranormal?

And will you read the links I sent in my last post?
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. All I have asked for, repeatedly, is a link to a single experiment that demonstrates, clearly and replicably, that psychic activity exists.

Did I misunderstand when you say above you " do not believe in anything paranormal"?

I could cite a load of scientists who have conducted experiments in the psychic phenomena field and have come up with negative results. You have done this with, presumably, claimed positive results. What do we do then? Add up who has the most scientist and draw a conclusion from that? Science isn't about majorities.

Experimentation is the basis of science. When Galileo suggested (and he wan't the first) a heliocentric solar system, others were able to replicate his results. No-one has ever been able to offer anything remotely similar in the psychic field. You can list as many scientists as you like, but unless you can point to results, this is futile.
 
Sorry, I mistakenly thought that was link to their papers. I'll try and find one.

The Radin research I have no idea as it is all stats and random numbers and I have the feeling any positive correlations are a product of statistical phenomena or experimental design failure. I love this. It suggests that, despite not reading the research, you are blessed with an ESP on the results. Brilliant! ;)

Okay, it's time to share the anecdote I've been promising. Again, I give this as a "I do not know what the **** is going on", but also remembering Robert Anton Wilson admonishment that "If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of s%&t."

This was in 1988 so I was 15. My sister, who was 12 at the time, had been unusually reserved for a few weeks. Nobody took much notice as, well, she was a 12 year old girl... One night my step-father was snoring particularly loudly after several ales so my mum slept in my sisters room as she was staying at a friends.

The next morning she was quite upset as something very odd had happened. She wouldn't tell us what it was, but said she had to speak with Lou when she came home. Anyway, Lou came in from school and mum said &#8220;I slept in your room last night...&#8221; Lou immediately looked down and became withdrawn. My mum asked her if anything unusual had been happening in her room. She eventually admitted that every morning her quilt was pulled from the bed and her curtains were drawn open. This is exactly what had happened to my mum and she didn't mention it to Lou before she told her.

At this point my freak out monitor went haywire so I ran away upstairs to la-la-la-its-not-happening land. Turns out Lou had played on a Ouija board (again) at the local youth club and &#8220;attracted a little girl who died in the park&#8221; (the name of the girl and historical fact of her death was confirmed later). Again, I have no idea if that is what happened, but something did.

My mum invited a trusted psychic friend around to &#8220;move her on&#8221;. It worked and nothing else happened as far as I can recall.

What happened here? Rule out collaboration and trickery because they're not that good actors and again would not keep up this pretence for 25 years.
 
You say:
the name of the girl and historical fact of her death was confirmed later
Click to expand...
. What was the name and how was the historical fact established? Without anything to support this, it is utterly worthless as evidence.

I'm off to help Elvis feed the unicorns.
 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a quote that springs to mind when i here about anecdotal claims of paranormal.
 
I have never met anyone in real life that believes in ghosts and wierd goings on. I only ever see these stories on forums which I think says a lot.
 
I think the only real belief needed is that of the people who experienced it.
 
Jon,
I have had several experiences, which I can't explain, just because there is no scientific explanation for them doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
Davec223 said:
Jon,
I have had several experiences, which I can't explain, just because there is no scientific explanation for them doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But if you expect people to believe they happened, you have to offer proof. At least, that's what my unicorn says.
 
Nice. Take one single quote and run with it. I'm done debating this any more with you guys. It gets nowhere at all.
 
The23rdman said:
Maybe not.
Click to expand...

You keep linking to various people who I have never heard of (Winston Wu? Good name, that...), but utterly fail to back up your claims, and throw a hissy fit (Go stick your head up the unicorns rectum. Classy.) when asked to substantiate your claims. If there is evidence to support the existence of the dead girl you refer to above, what is the problem with producing it?
 
clicktor said:
I have never met anyone in real life that believes in ghosts and wierd goings on. I only ever see these stories on forums which I think says a lot.
Click to expand...

Come and meet me, and I have no issues telling anyone about it in real life either.
 
Davec223 said:
Come and meet me, and I have no issues telling anyone about it in real life either.
Click to expand...

Likewise. I find that attitude dismissive at best and downright rude at worst. Unless, of course, you're suggesting people typing on the internet are some kind of phantom rather than real people, in which case you're admitting to the existence of the paranormal. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
Likewise. I find that attitude dismissive at best and downright rude at worst. Unless, of course, you're suggesting people typing on the internet are some kind of phantom rather than real people, in which case you're admitting to the existence of the paranormal. ;)
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top