Water flows in underground rivers is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of fact. Scientific theories attempt to explain a set of facts, they are not simple sets of facts. Since “water flows in underground rivers” is a simple statement of fact, how does it qualify as a scientific theory?
(2) Your argument is: Randi thinks A is B. Randi thinks my theory is B. Therefore he thinks my theory is A. In other words, you have shown (assuming your account is accurate) that Randi considers psuedoscience to be junk, and you have also shown that Randi thinks your theory is junk. What you have yet to prove is that Randi believes all junk scientific theories to be paranormal, or that he believes your particular brand of junk science to be paranormal. Do you have any evidence that Randi believes all junk scientific theories to be paranormal, or that he believes your particular “theory” to be paranormal?
I have read your application more closely now, so thanks for indulging me.
In the light of treis’ post just above, you seem to have committed the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, which is a non sequiter. Simply stated, if A then B; B, therefore A.
If that is not the case, why not?
The question seemed perfectly calm to me. What about it suggested a loss of temper?
That is not exactlyn answering my question, is it? My question was in response to your first axiom, which claims that Randi has defined theories as being paranormal. Can you provide a direct cite for that, rather than an inference on your part? To re-ask a previous question, if the phony *theories themselves *are in fact, by definition, evidence of paranormal, wouldn’t the Challenge have been won already?
True, but I’ll answer it anyway. That won’t happen. Randi is well known as a man of honour. I’ve had long discussions with Priceguy and others of his ilk, and I’ve become wholly convinced of that. Once Randi has issued a challenge, it’s issued and he won’t back away from it. He’s committed, both morally and legally. The challenge is a legally binding contract from which he can’t run away, even if he wanted to. And he wouldn’t even if he could.
After all, if he did so, his reputation would be shot. Nobody would ever be able to take him seriously again. If there were just one example of Randi making a challenge, then backing out then his challenge is rendered pointless. Every time he issues a dare, the person so challenged would just say “why should I bother? Randi challenged Peter Morris then backed out, he’ll just do the same to me” and Randi would have no come back.
Of course, it is never going to come to that. Ask Priceguy, or possibly Princhester who will surely be along soon. They will tell you how honourable Randi is.
That’s just a word game. Perhaps “theory” is the wrong word. I’m not going to argue. Insert the word of your choice.
This challenge here starts with the scientific [theory/ statement of fact] that magnetism changes the taste of wine. James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006
Randi does not believe that [theory/ statement of fact] and demands they prove it.
My claim is a similar [theory/ statement of fact] that Randi does not believe, and has challenged me to prove.
No, there is a big difference between a fact and a theory. The relevant definitions of the two words are:
If you agree with these definitions, can you please show how the statement “Underground rivers exist” meets the requirements of a theory, if not, can you provide your definitions?
wrong way round. Actually: If A then B. A, therefore B.
or : If bogus science then paranormal.
Bogus science (according to Randi)
Therefore paranormal.
Let me answer that question with a question. read the challenge issued by Randi to the makers of the wine magnets. James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006
Now, just suppose the following happened:
Some wine buff took the challenge issued by Randi.
He said at the start “It’s not paranormal, it’s ordinary science that Randi doesn’t understand”
Qualified scientists agreed with that statement.
He proceeded to demonstrate that magnets DO change the taste of wine.
At the end he said “toldya, and I never said it was paranormal”
Now, in the event of such a thing happening, would that guy be entitled to claim the prize? Even though he hasn’t done anything paranormal?
Really, please do answer that question. Because my claim is exactly the same as that.
No, if you don’t agree that my claim is a bogus scientific theory, I’m perfectly happy to call it a bogus scientific statement of fact. It makes no difference. It’s just a label.
The facts you provided don’t support that conclusion. You have shown that Randi thinks that pseudoscience is paranormal, but you have not shown that Randi considers all junk science to be pseudoscience or paranormal.
Can you show where Randi has said that he considers all bogus science to be paranormal or pseudoscience?
Well. If theories are interchangeable with statements of fact, I’d say you are in like Flynn. Priceguy, you state that you have a history with PM. Can it be that he believes that Randi has directly challenged him, and that that constitutes acceptance of The Challenge? And that therefore, if his Challenge application is denied, Randi is therefore dishonest? Is acceptance of The Challenge solely the province of Randi?
Fair enough I suppose. Now let’s concentrate on axiom 1, where you state that the he says that theory itself is paranormal. With absolutely no anger in my heart, I must stress that I have queried you on this numerous times, and you have failed to respond. Not that the claims suggested by the theory are paranormal, but the theory itself. Can you show where he states that a theory is paranormal, rather than stating that a theory describes or perdicts the paranormal. Surely you want to revise that part of your axiom, no?
I will post what I have so far, do as you requested, and get back to you.
As I understand it, such a person would not be entitled to the prize. I’m making this guess based on a case from 1980, in which Arthur Lintgen could identify recordings through “vinyl vision”. This wasn’t the million dollar challenge, though, so I can’t say for sure the same thing applies.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. Are you asking whether I believe Peter Morris to be truly honest-to-God delusional? I don’t think that’s an appropriate question to answer in MPSIMS.
This is not a serious question about my claim. It’s only a silly word game that I have played long enough. I’m here to answer questions, not argue.
Asked and answered. Ask again, it will be ignored.
Please stop misquoting me. I never claimed that he had challenged ME specifically. I’m saying that he challenges the specific claims I’m making. His challenge applies to ANYONE making those claims.
No, not at all. Poorly phrased. In your experience, has he stated that Randi has issued a direct challenge to him?
I shan’t ask it again, then. I will state that it has indeed been asked, but never answered, and offer as proof this statement of yours, with my emphasis –
“axiom 1) “pseudoscience” ie phony scientific theories ARE paranormal by Randi’s definition.”
As you have not chosen to amend said statement, I assume you stand by it. Further, if you can assert that difference between “theory” and “fact” is simply a “word game” or a “label,” I submit that your lexicon is insufficient to rigorous scientific inquisition.